- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Outreach - Yup, need to do more..
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

Robert and all, Beau is not the only one with allot of experiance with surveys. INEGroup does them on a fairly regular basis via Email to members and assiciates or other interested parties that make a request to be included in such. Additionally Vote.com is another avenue that can be used, but they can be a bit high on price. Outreach is not difficult as some seem to believe, but it does require diligance, and extreme interest as well as an ethical presence of openess without predjudice. This is how we built INEGroup and it is still growing. -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: Jun 7, 2008 1:03 PM >To: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Outreach - Yup, need to do more.. > >Dominic, > >Actually, we do agree. Just that I don't see survey's in isolation - >but part of a larger view of outreach, one that includes a far better >communications and assessment tools , such as surveys. > >Surveys can be done in all sorts of ways. However, if we want to have >it done well in a way that can really represent users from around the >world, then time and indeed money needs to be spent. A suggestion >thus, would be to recommend to the at-large director to allocate a >line item in our budget (present and/or future) so that a professional >survey could be done . > >Beau's organization has experience in this. so, his comments would be >- i think quite helpful. > >regards > >Robert > > > >On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> wrote: >> Robert, >> >> No, it is just one of my views how the public community could be >> participating. Sure, there are many open questions and I am not >> proposing anything final. Just I think that this approach, when >> effectively brought into life, would be much more transparent than the >> current status where there is practically no any measurable and >> verifiable input of real public needs or reactions on proposed >> solutions. >> >> Regards >> >> Dominik >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra >> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:39 PM >> To: At-Large Worldwide >> Subject: [At-Large] Outreach - Yup, need to do more.. >> >> Sounds like you are referring to - outreach - something mention, I >> think as a key objective that ALS's and ALAC needs to be doing. In my >> opinion, there is much outreach still as - for the most part - most >> internet users have no idea that there is a space for them to learn >> about and participate in - the governance and policies of ICANN.. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >> wrote: >>> Jacqueline, >>> >>> This is just an idea to think over. Online surveys, when massively >>> publicly announced, can be a very efficient means to collect large >>> pattern of public opinions. I know there are countries where the >>> Internet access is perhaps not that obvious as in developed countries; >> >>> and I am not proposing to restrict the gathering of opinions solely to >> >>> the surveys, there are also other means worth considering. But the >>> Internet access is widely spread nowadays and covers a large part of >>> the planet. >>> >>> I hope we can both agree that online surveys would be a significant >>> first step towards the public community. And they can be conducted on >>> regional level by ALSes. Other approaches can be considered in >>> parallel, no problem. >>> >>> Dominik >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline >> A. >>> Morris >>> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:01 PM >>> To: At-Large Worldwide >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>> >>> More problems than that - how do you propose that ALL users get a >>> chance to participate? Web polls and such tools are not sufficient to >>> reach the vast majority of users in the developing world, or do you >>> want to continue to leave us out? >>> Jacqueline >>> Dominik Filipp wrote: >>>> >>>> As a necessary prerequisite, assume that the at-large has a voting >>>> power. As I already elaborated on this a little on the GA, I see one >>>> possibility in establishing a quantifiable public input in form of >>>> online surveys, straw polls, polling booths, etc. accessible to >>>> everyone interesting in issues upon subscription/registration to a >>>> specific list and possibly some other basic verification mechanisms. >>>> Prior to public voting there will be some sufficient room for public >>>> deliberation and various discussions on issues similarly as it is now >> >>>> on the lists. This, however, opens some questions, for instance, how >>>> to consolidate the 'public result' (gathered after counting up the >>>> final public survey >>>> votes) when it is in contradiction with a significant or apparent >>>> fact >>> >>>> questioning the effectiveness of the public result. But I think this >>>> is not as impassable problem as it might seem at first glance and, in >> >>>> my opinion, can be overcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dominik >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:49 PM >>>> To: Dominik Filipp; Jacqueline Morris; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; >>>> aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov >>>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; bev(a)pcna.ca; >>>> icann-list(a)sorehands.com; BClist(a)bizconst.org; namecritic(a)blogs.pn; >>>> Brenbe(a)consumer.org; bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; >>>> CWallace(a)cygnacom.com; >>> >>>> carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au; >>>> dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; dave(a)farber.net; denise.michel(a)icann.org; >>>> derek(a)aa419.org; dpefeva(a)isoc.bg; Dominik Filipp; >>>> elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr; enoss(a)tucows.com; >>>> frederic.teboul(a)icann.org; ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov; cgomes(a)verisign.com; >>>> iza(a)anr.org; jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; jefsey(a)club-internet.fr; >>>> jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net; kp2007(a)friscotx.com; >>>> matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org; mike(a)palage.com; >>>> michele(a)blacknight.ie; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >>>> jnevett(a)networksolutions.com; nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; >>>> Paul.Paray(a)CNA.COM; patrick(a)vande-walle.eu; twomey(a)icann.org; >>>> robert(a)privaterra.org; roberto(a)icann.org; ross(a)tucows.com; >>>> stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr; >>>> roessler(a)does-not-exist.org; vb(a)bertola.eu; wendy(a)seltzer.com; >>>> joly(a)punkcast.com >>>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>>> >>>> Dominik and all, >>>> >>>> The more important problem with the ALAC and the ALS'es is that of >>>> accountability and transparency. >>>> Not only too ICANN but unto themselves. Only 15 voting members in >>>> the >>> >>>> ALAC?! How is that possible? >>>> How is such legitimate to users? How is such accountable to users? >>>> Frankly, it isn't accountable, nor ligitimate/transparent. It is of >>>> course *possible* if those that have the control of the servers for >>>> list forums and other underpennings are not themselves honest, >>>> transparent, and ethically accountable. >>>> >>>> If each user that is a participant of any ALS and/or the ALAC >>>> cannot >>> >>>> vote on any issue, there is little or no accountability. If any user >> >>>> that is a participant to any ALS or the ALAC cannot vote and freely >>>> participate on any ALS or ALAC forum uninhibited, there is little or >>>> no transparency nor accountability. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>>> From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>>>> Sent: Jun 6, 2008 8:59 AM >>>>> To: Jacqueline Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, >>>>> dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>>>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>>>> >>>>> Jacqueline, >>>>> >>>>> Danny is talking about principal things. The fact is that at-large >>>>> in >>> >>>>> its current status should be advocating the wide user community, >>>>> which is over 99% of all people/bodies recognized as Internet >>> stakeholders. >>>>> The fact that this vast majority has no representative voting seats >>>>> is simply unacceptable, dishonesting and a failure of the commitment >> >>>>> given >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> to the public community. That is, every efforts not targeted this >>>>> direction is just tacit collaboration in making up this cover-up and >> >>>>> an >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> extension of the agony. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that you have managed something in the air is, sorry, >>>>> nearly >>> >>>>> nothing in comparison to the great loss of real and representative >>>>> voting power. I am sorry but without this all this are just >>>>> toothless >>> >>>>> toys for children playing in the sand. Jacqueline and some others, I >> >>>>> don't diminish all the efforts and the sincerity you have invested >>>>> into >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> it but realize that the basic priorities are upside down. I >>>>> absolutely cannot understand how the ALAC and the ALS'es can accept >>>>> such a subordinate and undignified position! Doing this is unfair >>>>> and >>> >>>>> unaccountable and just covering the real goals being pursued behind >>>>> the >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> scenes. We know all what they are like. But have no courage to speak >> >>>>> them out loudly. That's the tragedy of the at-large. >>>>> >>>>> And the results? The ALAC was not even able to advocate its own >>>>> position on domain tasting held previously. Is this a proper >>>>> advisory >>> >>>>> committee behavior? Isn't it funny? A committee that is first >>> 'advised' >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> what it should advise? Just a masquerade. >>>>> >>>>> And the classical bread and circuses. Nothing else yet. >>>>> >>>>> That is my pretty honest opinion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dominik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>>> Jacqueline >>> >>>>> Morris >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:49 PM >>>>> To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>>>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >>>>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>>>> >>>>> Hey Danny >>>>> I am not ashamed at all. We have successfully managed to get ICANN >>>>> issues in the air in Trinidad and Tobago and in a large part of the >>>>> Caribbean that wasn't involved at all, thanks to this current >>>>> >>>> structure. >>>> >>>>> I think you meant to refer to the earlier "part-global" elections, >>>>> as >>> >>>>> many many Internet users were left out. We went over this a lot a >>>>> year ago. Those elections were not at all representative, IMO. So I >>>>> think your structure was not good as I think it is intrinsically >>>>> unfair to developing countries, and you think the current one is >>>>> not >>> good. >>>>> Makes no sense fighting for a structure that doesn't exist, got >>>>> scrapped and doesn't have support from at least half of the involved >>>>> >>>> users. >>>> >>>>> The logical thing is to work towards a structure that works for us >>>>> both, and stop trying to beat a very very dead cow back to life. >>>>> Jacqueline >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Danny Younger >>>>> <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted >>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>> the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.i >>>>> c >>>>> an >>>>> n >>>>> .org >>>>> >>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.i >>>>> c >>>>> an >>>>> n.org >>>>> >>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica >>> nn >>> .org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica >>> nn.org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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://atlarge.icann.org >> > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

Outreach - Yup, need to do more..
by Robert Guerra June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

Sounds like you are referring to - outreach - something mention, I think as a key objective that ALS's and ALAC needs to be doing. In my opinion, there is much outreach still as - for the most part - most internet users have no idea that there is a space for them to learn about and participate in - the governance and policies of ICANN.. regards Robert On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> wrote: > Jacqueline, > > This is just an idea to think over. Online surveys, when massively > publicly announced, can be a very efficient means to collect large > pattern of public opinions. I know there are countries where the > Internet access is perhaps not that obvious as in developed countries; > and I am not proposing to restrict the gathering of opinions solely to > the surveys, there are also other means worth considering. But the > Internet access is widely spread nowadays and covers a large part of the > planet. > > I hope we can both agree that online surveys would be a significant > first step towards the public community. And they can be conducted on > regional level by ALSes. Other approaches can be considered in parallel, > no problem. > > Dominik > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. > Morris > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:01 PM > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large > > More problems than that - how do you propose that ALL users get a chance > to participate? Web polls and such tools are not sufficient to reach the > vast majority of users in the developing world, or do you want to > continue to leave us out? > Jacqueline > Dominik Filipp wrote: >> >> As a necessary prerequisite, assume that the at-large has a voting >> power. As I already elaborated on this a little on the GA, I see one >> possibility in establishing a quantifiable public input in form of >> online surveys, straw polls, polling booths, etc. accessible to >> everyone interesting in issues upon subscription/registration to a >> specific list and possibly some other basic verification mechanisms. >> Prior to public voting there will be some sufficient room for public >> deliberation and various discussions on issues similarly as it is now >> on the lists. This, however, opens some questions, for instance, how >> to consolidate the 'public result' (gathered after counting up the >> final public survey >> votes) when it is in contradiction with a significant or apparent fact > >> questioning the effectiveness of the public result. But I think this >> is not as impassable problem as it might seem at first glance and, in >> my opinion, can be overcome. >> >> >> Dominik >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:49 PM >> To: Dominik Filipp; Jacqueline Morris; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; >> aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; bev(a)pcna.ca; >> icann-list(a)sorehands.com; BClist(a)bizconst.org; namecritic(a)blogs.pn; >> Brenbe(a)consumer.org; bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; CWallace(a)cygnacom.com; > >> carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au; >> dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; dave(a)farber.net; denise.michel(a)icann.org; >> derek(a)aa419.org; dpefeva(a)isoc.bg; Dominik Filipp; >> elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr; enoss(a)tucows.com; >> frederic.teboul(a)icann.org; ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov; cgomes(a)verisign.com; >> iza(a)anr.org; jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; jefsey(a)club-internet.fr; >> jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net; kp2007(a)friscotx.com; >> matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org; mike(a)palage.com; >> michele(a)blacknight.ie; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >> jnevett(a)networksolutions.com; nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; >> Paul.Paray(a)CNA.COM; patrick(a)vande-walle.eu; twomey(a)icann.org; >> robert(a)privaterra.org; roberto(a)icann.org; ross(a)tucows.com; >> stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr; >> roessler(a)does-not-exist.org; vb(a)bertola.eu; wendy(a)seltzer.com; >> joly(a)punkcast.com >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >> >> Dominik and all, >> >> The more important problem with the ALAC and the ALS'es is that of >> accountability and transparency. >> Not only too ICANN but unto themselves. Only 15 voting members in the > >> ALAC?! How is that possible? >> How is such legitimate to users? How is such accountable to users? >> Frankly, it isn't accountable, nor ligitimate/transparent. It is of >> course *possible* if those that have the control of the servers for >> list forums and other underpennings are not themselves honest, >> transparent, and ethically accountable. >> >> If each user that is a participant of any ALS and/or the ALAC cannot > >> vote on any issue, there is little or no accountability. If any user >> that is a participant to any ALS or the ALAC cannot vote and freely >> participate on any ALS or ALAC forum uninhibited, there is little or >> no transparency nor accountability. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>> Sent: Jun 6, 2008 8:59 AM >>> To: Jacqueline Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, >>> dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>> >>> Jacqueline, >>> >>> Danny is talking about principal things. The fact is that at-large in > >>> its current status should be advocating the wide user community, >>> which is over 99% of all people/bodies recognized as Internet > stakeholders. >>> The fact that this vast majority has no representative voting seats >>> is simply unacceptable, dishonesting and a failure of the commitment >>> given >>> >> >> >>> to the public community. That is, every efforts not targeted this >>> direction is just tacit collaboration in making up this cover-up and >>> an >>> >> >> >>> extension of the agony. >>> >>> The fact that you have managed something in the air is, sorry, nearly > >>> nothing in comparison to the great loss of real and representative >>> voting power. I am sorry but without this all this are just toothless > >>> toys for children playing in the sand. Jacqueline and some others, I >>> don't diminish all the efforts and the sincerity you have invested >>> into >>> >> >> >>> it but realize that the basic priorities are upside down. I >>> absolutely cannot understand how the ALAC and the ALS'es can accept >>> such a subordinate and undignified position! Doing this is unfair and > >>> unaccountable and just covering the real goals being pursued behind >>> the >>> >> >> >>> scenes. We know all what they are like. But have no courage to speak >>> them out loudly. That's the tragedy of the at-large. >>> >>> And the results? The ALAC was not even able to advocate its own >>> position on domain tasting held previously. Is this a proper advisory > >>> committee behavior? Isn't it funny? A committee that is first > 'advised' >>> >> >> >>> what it should advise? Just a masquerade. >>> >>> And the classical bread and circuses. Nothing else yet. >>> >>> That is my pretty honest opinion. >>> >>> >>> Dominik >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline > >>> Morris >>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:49 PM >>> To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>> >>> Hey Danny >>> I am not ashamed at all. We have successfully managed to get ICANN >>> issues in the air in Trinidad and Tobago and in a large part of the >>> Caribbean that wasn't involved at all, thanks to this current >>> >> structure. >> >>> I think you meant to refer to the earlier "part-global" elections, as > >>> many many Internet users were left out. We went over this a lot a >>> year ago. Those elections were not at all representative, IMO. So I >>> think your structure was not good as I think it is intrinsically >>> unfair to developing countries, and you think the current one is not > good. >>> Makes no sense fighting for a structure that doesn't exist, got >>> scrapped and doesn't have support from at least half of the involved >>> >> users. >> >>> The logical thing is to work towards a structure that works for us >>> both, and stop trying to beat a very very dead cow back to life. >>> Jacqueline >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Danny Younger >>> <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in >>>> >>> the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic >>> an >>> n >>> .org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic >>> an >>> n.org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> >> Regards, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://atlarge.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://atlarge.icann.org >

2 2

Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

Jacque, Dominik and all, Web tools reach the vast majority. Failing that, we use text based polls and voting mechnisims. They work quite well, but are not perfict. Additionally, good outreach such as burning shoe leather, is always avaliable and helpful. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Jun 7, 2008 12:01 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large > >More problems than that - how do you propose that ALL users get a chance >to participate? Web polls and such tools are not sufficient to reach the >vast majority of users in the developing world, or do you want to >continue to leave us out? >Jacqueline >Dominik Filipp wrote: >> >> As a necessary prerequisite, assume that the at-large has a voting >> power. As I already elaborated on this a little on the GA, I see one >> possibility in establishing a quantifiable public input in form of >> online surveys, straw polls, polling booths, etc. accessible to everyone >> interesting in issues upon subscription/registration to a specific list >> and possibly some other basic verification mechanisms. Prior to public >> voting there will be some sufficient room for public deliberation and >> various discussions on issues similarly as it is now on the lists. This, >> however, opens some questions, for instance, how to consolidate the >> 'public result' (gathered after counting up the final public survey >> votes) when it is in contradiction with a significant or apparent fact >> questioning the effectiveness of the public result. But I think this is >> not as impassable problem as it might seem at first glance and, in my >> opinion, can be overcome. >> >> >> Dominik >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:49 PM >> To: Dominik Filipp; Jacqueline Morris; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; >> aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; bev(a)pcna.ca; >> icann-list(a)sorehands.com; BClist(a)bizconst.org; namecritic(a)blogs.pn; >> Brenbe(a)consumer.org; bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; CWallace(a)cygnacom.com; >> carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au; >> dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; dave(a)farber.net; denise.michel(a)icann.org; >> derek(a)aa419.org; dpefeva(a)isoc.bg; Dominik Filipp; >> elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr; enoss(a)tucows.com; >> frederic.teboul(a)icann.org; ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov; cgomes(a)verisign.com; >> iza(a)anr.org; jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; jefsey(a)club-internet.fr; >> jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net; kp2007(a)friscotx.com; >> matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org; mike(a)palage.com; michele(a)blacknight.ie; >> Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; jnevett(a)networksolutions.com; >> nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; Paul.Paray(a)CNA.COM; patrick(a)vande-walle.eu; >> twomey(a)icann.org; robert(a)privaterra.org; roberto(a)icann.org; >> ross(a)tucows.com; stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr; >> roessler(a)does-not-exist.org; vb(a)bertola.eu; wendy(a)seltzer.com; >> joly(a)punkcast.com >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >> >> Dominik and all, >> >> The more important problem with the ALAC and the ALS'es is that of >> accountability and transparency. >> Not only too ICANN but unto themselves. Only 15 voting members in the >> ALAC?! How is that possible? >> How is such legitimate to users? How is such accountable to users? >> Frankly, it isn't accountable, nor ligitimate/transparent. It is of >> course *possible* if those that have the control of the servers for list >> forums and other underpennings are not themselves honest, transparent, >> and ethically accountable. >> >> If each user that is a participant of any ALS and/or the ALAC cannot >> vote on any issue, there is little or no accountability. If any user >> that is a participant to any ALS or the ALAC cannot vote and freely >> participate on any ALS or ALAC forum uninhibited, there is little or no >> transparency nor accountability. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>> Sent: Jun 6, 2008 8:59 AM >>> To: Jacqueline Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, >>> dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>> >>> Jacqueline, >>> >>> Danny is talking about principal things. The fact is that at-large in >>> its current status should be advocating the wide user community, which >>> is over 99% of all people/bodies recognized as Internet stakeholders. >>> The fact that this vast majority has no representative voting seats is >>> simply unacceptable, dishonesting and a failure of the commitment given >>> >> >> >>> to the public community. That is, every efforts not targeted this >>> direction is just tacit collaboration in making up this cover-up and an >>> >> >> >>> extension of the agony. >>> >>> The fact that you have managed something in the air is, sorry, nearly >>> nothing in comparison to the great loss of real and representative >>> voting power. I am sorry but without this all this are just toothless >>> toys for children playing in the sand. Jacqueline and some others, I >>> don't diminish all the efforts and the sincerity you have invested into >>> >> >> >>> it but realize that the basic priorities are upside down. I absolutely >>> cannot understand how the ALAC and the ALS'es can accept such a >>> subordinate and undignified position! Doing this is unfair and >>> unaccountable and just covering the real goals being pursued behind the >>> >> >> >>> scenes. We know all what they are like. But have no courage to speak >>> them out loudly. That's the tragedy of the at-large. >>> >>> And the results? The ALAC was not even able to advocate its own >>> position on domain tasting held previously. Is this a proper advisory >>> committee behavior? Isn't it funny? A committee that is first 'advised' >>> >> >> >>> what it should advise? Just a masquerade. >>> >>> And the classical bread and circuses. Nothing else yet. >>> >>> That is my pretty honest opinion. >>> >>> >>> Dominik >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline >>> Morris >>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:49 PM >>> To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large >>> >>> Hey Danny >>> I am not ashamed at all. We have successfully managed to get ICANN >>> issues in the air in Trinidad and Tobago and in a large part of the >>> Caribbean that wasn't involved at all, thanks to this current >>> >> structure. >> >>> I think you meant to refer to the earlier "part-global" elections, as >>> many many Internet users were left out. We went over this a lot a year >>> ago. Those elections were not at all representative, IMO. So I think >>> your structure was not good as I think it is intrinsically unfair to >>> developing countries, and you think the current one is not good. >>> Makes no sense fighting for a structure that doesn't exist, got >>> scrapped and doesn't have support from at least half of the involved >>> >> users. >> >>> The logical thing is to work towards a structure that works for us >>> both, and stop trying to beat a very very dead cow back to life. >>> Jacqueline >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in >>>> >>> the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>> n >>> .org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>> n.org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> >> Regards, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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 >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] Who's ashamed?
by Dominik Filipp June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

If, however, this happened the situation would at least get clarified finally. ICANN would become an organization top-down driven by the board and two registry/registrar constituencies. Without necessary ballast. By the way, the current 15 ALAC members are at least five times more than active GA members :-)) Dominik -----Original Message----- From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:07 PM To: Dominik Filipp; Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Who's ashamed? At 13:12 07/06/2008, Dominik Filipp wrote: >An example could be the approval of the Verisign agreement that in fact >cements the Verisign's monopoly on the .com market for a long time, >which, of course, is far away from public interests. As you know, one could claim that the ALAC is a way to strangle the DNSO/GA who motionned against that agreement and has been set-up in a way this cannot happen again. When ALAC becomes too "active" the solution is to redowngrade it to the GA level. 15 ALAC members are roughly the equivalent of the GA Membership, with similar influence. jfc

2 1

Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france@large
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

Jacque, JFC, and all, JFC is right to a great extent. ICANN has and continues to practice exclusion and inclusion under false pretense, IMO and an opinion that seems to be borne out by the overwhelming documented evidance. It appears to me, as it seems it appears to JFC that the ALAC is doing the very same thing. Such is commonly known as a "Club mantality". Nothing wrong with Clubs, but if so recognized and eternalized by ICANN, than just be plain and say so. I for one see nothing wrong with France having it's own country centric @large. If the ALAC does not embrace such, nor ICANN, than they can't be acting in an inclusive manner by act and/or lack there of. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Jun 7, 2008 10:48 AM >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france@large > >At 14:27 07/06/2008, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >>Crime?? >>This sort of language is getting beyond the pale. You deliberately >>distort and misunderstand and then accuse people of committing >>crimes. That requires an apology and retraction. > >No. I am using a technical word (commiting something wrong) >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crime >in its technical meaning to quote a basic principle of the right: >Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans. >no one is heeded who adduces his own infamy >(No one is heard when alleging one's own wrong) > >I know that ICANN and ALAC can claim to be an exception, but UN says: >"The principle of nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans is >applied in most legal systems and prevents anyone asserting a right >acquired by fraud." > >What is worrying is that the use of your inaccurate reading can >either be taken as: >- polemic where there is only technicality. Why? >- dilatory, making you a party of the wrong caused to france@large, >and adding to it. >- an acknowledgment of the degree of the caused wrong. Then I would >thank you for that. It is true that ALAC endangers its own crediblity >in acting in the way it did. This is why I wish to play it low key >for now, permitting honnest ALAC Members to realise what they did and >honnest Internet @large/people to understand what was made by their >"representatives" on their behalf. Frankly I do not know any worst >crime in a network than exclusion, except exclusion on false pretence. >jfc > >>Jacqueline >>JFC Morfin wrote: >>>Dear Jacqueline, >>>You cannot benefit from your own crimes. ALAC cannot use against us >>>rules they violated to our detriment. Until the case can be settled >>>in appeal no one can claim as you do (without adding to the crime) that: >>> >>>1) france@large is not an accedited ALS since May 13th. >>>2) that I was not or Louis was not a legitimate candidate to be >>>elected at the ALAC by Euralo >>>3) that I have/he has not been elected in due time to vote for an >>>ALAC/BoD liaison. >>>4) that as such I cannot nominate Sebastien or that Louis cannot >>>nominate me as a Liaison to the BoD. >>> >>>At 16:04 06/06/2008, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>>>ALAC and the At Large are different things. >>> >>>Correct. You are not ALAC. We are French Internet @larges. >>> >>>>ALAC is a committee with 2/3 of its members elected by the regional >>>>groupings of ALSes. So if one is a representative of an ALS, then one >>>>can stand for election in one's region for a position of ALAC member for >>>>that region. No-one can join or enter ALAC except through this >>>>mechanism or via the other 1/3 NomCom appointees to ALAC. >>> >>>Perfectly true. See above. The nomination I made was explicitly >>>conditional as per above. >>> >>>>The At Large is the mass of ALSes and their members, all the users, etc. >>> >>>Correct. You select them, I serve them. >>> >>>>They are represented at the Committee level by 10 representatives on the >>>>ALAC. (2 from each region) >>> >>>We are not since these people voted that we do not exist. >>> >>>>To join the At Large officially, one can >>>>apply via one's regional organisation (RALO). Each RALO has slightly >>>>different rules. The RALO advises on each applicant and the ALAC votes. >>>>Staff has no vote or say in this process. Their job is to do research on >>>>the candidates, making sure that what they say on the application form >>>>is verifiable and correct. >>> >>>In existing we verify that Staff reported uncorrectly. It is up to >>>the appeal decision to correct this as fas as ICANN is concerned. >>>As far as we are concerned we know we exist and legitimately behave as such. >>> >>>Currently, our appeal is delayed by Staff. We do not fully the >>>English draft we received, the Ombudsman declined to speed up the >>>case in translating it for us. As such, by its consequence Staff is >>>also adding to the crime. >>> >>>>So a lot of what france@large representatives on this list have been >>>>saying is flat out wrong. >>> >>>(1) you say here something you are not entitled to say. >>>(2) you hurt the ALAC position in showing that your interests might >>>benefit from our situation while it is wrong. >>> >>>>I hope this clears it up and we can stop having all these emails >>>>flying back and forth based on misunderstanding of the rules that >>>>the RALOs and ALAC adopted to govern the At Large in ICANN. >>> >>>I do hope the same. >>>Until the case is administratively settled, france@large intends to >>>make its legitimate rights protected. >>>This being said, we all know this is a purely political issue. >>> >>>Cheers ! >>>jfc >>> >>> >>>>Jacqueline >>>> >>>>JFC Morfin wrote: >>>> > This is why I personnally pushed them to welcome ICANN and enter ALAC. >> >>

1 0

ALAC and AtLarge and france at large
by Danny Younger June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large. Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Memembership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents. As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at-large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals). You have chosen to accept a perversion formulated after at-large directors were expelled from the Board instead of that which was broadly accepted by the wider community. In doing so, you have abandoned the clearly stated goals of the at-large, namely: "The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), (b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that are valid and authentic, (c) to ensure that ICANN�s corporate structure operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the entire user community, (d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN Directors and (e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner." So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors? None whatsoever. It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.

6 10

CONFIRMED: new gTLD Briefing Session 11 June 1330 UTC
by At-Large Staff June 7, 2008

June 7, 2008

Dear all, The Briefing Session on ICANN¹s new gTLD program will be on Wednesday, 11 June at 1330 UTC. Ms. Karla Valente, from ICANN¹s new gTLD program and Mr. Olof Nordling, Manager of Policy Development Coordination will give a presentation on the new gTLD programme, including an update on the staff implementation planning. The briefing is designed to focus on the programme from an Internet end-users¹ perspective; members of GNSO constituencies are being invited to join the briefing. Subsequently, they will be available to answer some of your questions, both about the GNSO Policy presented to the Board and the implementation planning for the programme. Please visit the meeting page to find participation instructions and reference material for this presentation. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_programme We will soon upload Karla Valente¹s PowerPoint presentation to the meeting page and you will also be able to follow the presentation in real time, chat and ask questions using the Adobe Connect meeting room for this presentation. The Adobe Connect link is also on the meeting page. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Who's ashamed?
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 6, 2008

June 6, 2008

Dominik and all, Well argued and articulated here Dominik. Same for Danny's original response. Evan, at least in America we don't have riots at nearly every soccer game. I am quite sure Danny was not speeking only as an American or with the same view of an American. Personally as one who represents as spokesman for users in over 100 countries, your anti-American bias is understood, but not largely shared by our members. I hope in the future you will obtain a more ballanced attitude. But also let me be clear that indeed there is much room for improvement from my country towards other peoples of the world, and conversly there is just as much if not more of those that spew hateful words and tone towards my fellow countrymen/women and government. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 6, 2008 1:01 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Who's ashamed? > >Evan, > >Please read my remarks below... > >>At-Large is meant to be the home of >>individuals, but not simply the handful of >>elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American >>noisemakers that Danny falsely believes >>speak for the "public at large". > >Do you see the five points enumerated by Danny elitistic and sort of romanticized vision? You then perhaps want to get rid the Board as a whole and replace it by a brand new structure where the wide community voice would be inherently reflected (in votes) in a fully transparent manner. I would second it. Just please explain how this could be feasible. > >>At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers >>of the Internet, so to speak, who generally >>don't own domains but are greatly affected >>by their allocation and use. To do this, the >>current ALS infrastructure is designed to get >>as many people as possible involved -- or at >>least aware -- through membership organizations >>that don't nominally have Internet policy as >>a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech >>advocates, community co-operatives, consumer >>groups and others from everywhere on Earth all >>have a role to play here. Personally I believe >>that maximizing public involvement through >>otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart >>-- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives >>to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for >>those who were not self-described policymakers >>and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date. > >Great vision, indeed. I fully agree. Just one weak point out here. All this effort can be spoiled in a minute by a vote of few unaccounatble individuals whose the only interest is to stuff the pockets. And this negligible detail turns the whole great vision into a fairy tail. > >>Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, >>a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure >>is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, >>though one can certainly take issue with the quality >>of execution. > >No, it is not a repudiation. But without the representative voting power the ALS is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing a persuasive cover-up to the outside world. > >>Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, >>so this one is not really fulfilled. We can >>wait and see how the ALAC review group handles >>that one. > >So far so very good. The problem is in the words "wait and see". I'll tell you how the ALAC will handle that one. Exactly the same way as it did in domain tasting. You will be persuaded of not feasibility of a stronger solution and you'll finally back off. > >>Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is >>grossly perverted, and must be avoided. > >Ah, now I fully understand. > >>There is a process -- long and drawn out it may >>be -- and we are following it. I would be the >>first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked >>either the maturity or the mandate to deserve >>a Board vote. While the maturation process >>still has far to go, the environment has >>improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got >>involved. > >Correct. And I hope you'll find some of my observations helpful in achieving this goal. > >>I am certainly not ashamed of my role in >>At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current >>members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for >>their perseverance at working to achieve a most >>difficult task. Given that At-Large should not >>be dominated by self-styled experts who create >>policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing >>reasonably well. The new allocation of staff >>will help provide badly needed resources to >>a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs >>take us far away from Internet policy. > >Certainly not. And I do believe too that many people are doing good job. They just perhaps do not fully realize that waiting and seeing might be sort of naïve expectations. > >Nevertheless, the litmus test is the upcoming bringing of the GNSO improvements into life. This step will no doubt be significant in revealing the further direction. Let's see what is going to happen. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch >Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:07 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide >Subject: [At-Large] Who's ashamed? > >Danny Younger wrote: >> The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large. >> >Ah, back to that old romantic vision... at least you're persistent, no matter how sad and tired the crusade. > >> Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents. >> > >So far so good. > >> As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at-large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals). > >Let's stop there. > >At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large". > >NCUC is the rightful place for academia, and for organizations and people actively involved in making Internet policy as part of their mandate. At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware >-- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date. The voice of the global public goes far beyond the elitist cadre that forms the core of Danny's tragically romanticized vision. > >The extra level of indirection -- ALSs -- between ICANN and the public allows various core individuals to help drive the process, supported by ICANN but ultimately charged with helping to build a grassroots that simply could never happen under Danny's model. > >Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided. > >> "The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: >> (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable >> identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership >> should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), >We got that. As At-Large matures it will even get beyond its current concentrations of ISOC chapters and attract more groups such as Consumers Union. Not only should At-Large not be limited to domain name holders, it is in our interests -- to keep to the vision -- that the vast majority of At-Large is comprised of those who do not own domains. > >> (b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that >> are valid and authentic, >"Valid and authentic" is in the eye of the beholder. Danny wants a return to elitism, I want to broaden the base exactly to give the At-Large voice more validity. It is no surprise that, in other mail, Danny has defended the NomComm and attacked outreach initiatives; his vision actually *fears* greater public involvement and accountability. > >Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one. > >> (c) to ensure that ICANN s corporate structure operates for >> the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and >> continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the >> entire user community, > >Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution. > >> (d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN >> Directors and >We do that now. Wendy's success in getting approval in principle for the Summit is only one recent example. Of course a Board vote (or, IMO more than one vote) would be better. > >> (e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner." >> > >The effort to engage an otherwise-disinterested public comes with an expense; for that I make no apology. Otherwise all you hear are the noisemakers who think they have all the answers but certainly do not represent the global public POV. > >> So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors? >> >Don't know about anyone else, but I had a very prepared and thought-out submission (actually, more than one) to the ALAC review. Not sure what else we are expected to do ... stage sit-ins? Boycott IPv6? Deface websites? Write angry emails with a hundred Ccs that all get ignored? > >There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved. > >> It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed. >> >I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy. > >And we get to do this all in the face of virtual rock-throwers, of saboteurs from within who claim we're irrelevant yet still insist on engaging us. Such distractions are annoying, but must not deter achievement of the vision that the current ALS/RALO/ALAC structure is well capable to deliver. > >- Evan > > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] Bad domains McAfee study
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 6, 2008

June 6, 2008

Jacque and all, Please excuse the lengthy CC list. But due to the mismanagement of the ALAC list ensuring receipt of my response to this was required. I'm quite sure that (HKDNR) was very surprised. I am however not sure that the reasons they gave for being so surprised are entirely honest. I myself have not experienced much spam/phishing Email originating from .HK domains. Nor have I heard from any our members of such either. I will check with our study group that has been engaged on an ongoing basis in tracking, researching, and collecting data on "Bad Domains" as you put it Jacque. Our study also did show a high recidivism of spam, phishing, SQL injection attempts, and attempted hacking from .INFO domains and were tracked to various bogus IP address assignments. My own personal data base going back to 2004 shows that approx. 16% of the spam and phishing attempts originated from .INFO domains. Currently I block 47 .INFO domain Names as a result. All have been reported to us-cert.gov and several have been reported to ic3.gov for investigation as is appropriate. Although I along with several of our members have attempted in to prevail with Afilias in doing a much better job of policing their registrants, those efforts have been almost entirely not effective. Ergo it is our policy by majority decision to discontinue contacting Afilias on such incidents, and simply reporting each and every incident, blocking those domain names and associated IP addresses first, than forwarding those reports to afilias if our members feel so inclined in hopes of breaking the errant recessive cycle of abuse by Afilias'es registrants and Afilias itself. To date, this has met with only some cooperation. In my professional capacity at work, we currently for our customers, whom are mostly service providers and independent hosters for those that have requested, we block all .INFO related network traffic and internally due to the recidivism and ongoing arogant and inconsiderate attitude as well as slowness or response to incidents by Afilias, all .INFO traffic is blocked until the Registry for .INFO is redelegated. The response vs cost of resources just wasn't and isn't worth the effort. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Jun 6, 2008 10:33 AM >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study > >Hi Beau >There's been some discussion on the cc lists about this as you can imagine. >Here's the .hk response to the media: > >We are very surprised to learn about the research findings from McAfee. >In fact, in a meeting organized by Anti-Phishing Working Group last week >in Tokyo Japan, Hong Kong Domain Name Registration (HKDNR) was invited >to present its best practice in combating suspicious websites. We are >trying to get in touch with the research author to gain more insights >into this research and the findings. The research report shows the >figures and analysis of the whole of last year. In particular, the >report claimed that 9.9 million websites have been tested. It is >suspected that most of the malicious sites were tested several months >ago and no long exist. > >HKDNR is committed to providing a safe Internet environment for the >community and has put in place various measures against suspicious >websites. We have been working closely with Office of the >Telecommunications Authority (OFTA), Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong >Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT) to monitor >and control the situation. In August last year, in conjunction with the >list of suspicious domains provided by OFTA, we suspended over 10,000 >domains in regard. Following that initiatives, the situation with ‘.hk’ >related suspicious websites has been greatly improved. > >We actively review our systems and domain name registration procedures >and policies. Particularly, we have more stringent documentary >requirements to combat suspicious websites registered overseas in order >to catch up with the fast-changing Internet world. We also want to call >for the general community to be aware of the issue and report to related >authorities whenever they have queries accessing a web site. > > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24966835?GT1=43001 >> >> "McAfee found the most dangerous domains to navigate to are ".hk" (Hong >> Kong), ".cn" (China) and ".info" (information)." >> >> Apologies if you've seen this already. >> >> BB >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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://atlarge.icann.org >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] [ALAC-Internal] RES: Notice of Opening for Board Liaison Nominations Period
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 6, 2008

June 6, 2008

JFC and all, No one had really heard of France@large even in France itself until recently. Most of those frenchmen and women that do now and recently were and are INEGroup members which number over 4k today. Additionally France@large's DN's DNS is grossly miscongfigured and as a result, currently represents a clear a present danger to users everywhere. Open relays are s significant danger. See: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&tok… So JFC, although I recognize your effort to create from whole thread a @large that is of French origin, what your promoting, and to a degree how your promoting it, is more than a bit disengenious, and due to technical deficiencies, again represents a clear a present danger to users everywhere. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Jun 6, 2008 5:24 AM >To: Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] RES: Notice of Opening for Board Liaison Nominations Period > >At 12:47 06/06/2008, Thomas Roessler wrote: >>On 2008-06-06 06:41:34 -0400, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> > Not that JFC was self-nominating Sebastien, which of course is >> > ridiculous. >> >>It would explain a lot, though. >>(sorry, Sebastien, couldn't resist) >>-- >>Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > >Dear Thomas and all, >This joke should help all of you understand how ALAC management may >be perceived by new and candid new commers. france@large is certainly >the most advanced, concerned and involved lose net of @large people. >They do not focus on ICANN they consider as a set of cons and pros. >They focus on their own personal interests which is networked with >the interests of others. In life, business, culture, language, etc. >etc. including the Internet. > >They also are an advanced group of people in terms of grassroots >evolution of the Internet and probably one of the few ALS having an >Internet usage architectural alternative under way, liaising with the >IETF, and active at the IGF level (local, european and worldwide). >This is why I personnally pushed them to welcome ICANN and enter ALAC. > >Their reasoning is simple : > >1. ALAC does not want us. Why to bother about them. We are on a >technical trend to societally by-pass them. > >I agree with them, but, they do not necessarily evaluate correctly >the anglosaxon legacy we also have to support, the same as the >anglo-saxon world does not evaluate what is needed and developping in >the rest of the world. Making this understood by both sides is difficult. > >2. This made I could not be a candidate to Euralo, and we cannot vote >in Paris. They know they are legitimate and that all this would be >administratively settled had I called upon the Ombudsman or/and the >BoD, instead of trusting Wolf and waiting to see him in Paris. > >Wolf did not help in disregrading our invitation to the diner we >planned at Saff suggestion. They infered there would have a closed >BoF. To calm this, I nominated Sebastien as the only ALAC person >knowing the issues we are dealing with (I underlined I could not do it). > >4. the very unfortunate comment of Staff on "self-nomination" came on >top of all this. It shows they equal Sebastien's positions with ours. >Everyone know we a very friendly with ISOC but very different too. >Your comment adds to it :-) ! They deduce the feud is by "merchant >concepts" (as per the IAB RFC 3869) - they daily suffer from in their >france@large endeavours, and against the "Internet French/WSIS/people >centric concepts". > >For everyone to better undestand, I quote IAB (two years ago): "The >principal thesis of this document [RFC 3869] is that if commercial >funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, >the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In >addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding >source can also affect the content of the research, for example, >towards or against the development of open standards, or taking >varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols >on the other traffic on the Internet." > >The solution proposed by IAB are: non-commercial R&D funding by >Governements (US mainly) or @large. The USG has not followed and said >US industry should be the funding source. Some IETF geeks then >switched to Google or Yahoo! france@large wen excluded but >sucessfully opposed (at IETF, ISO, SMSI) some of their most >contentious positions. A few days ago, france@large has closed a >mutual de facto understanding with the IETF/WG-IDNABIS over >IDNA/ML-DNS. In our mind, it should help a smooth transition from a >cahotic and born dead Internationalised Internet to a stable >Multilngual Internet, and permit the emergence of the Semantic Internet. > >You may understand why they are upset and now laughing at the >ALAC/Staff's attitude. The question I constantly have is "what did >they produced, whet did they help?. > >For ten years I tell ICANN "let get real". Then Esther Dyson said the >same. Many will say the same in coming months and two years (JPA and >IGF understanding of ICANN). There is a place for ICANN in the world >digital and semantic ecosystem supported by the Internet. This role >can only be introduced and made credible to users by ALAC, as the >ICANN own's users. Otherwise there will be a split, the USG/ICANN >dreaming of a new world shape and the world building itself >differently ...until there is a US/World interoperability clash. > >The Internet is an interconnected computer assisted people's network, >the IETF only wants to influence the design, use and management for >it to work better along its own values [RFC 3935]. This means it >really is what the people think how it is built. ICANN is a >regulating organisationware tool for these computers. People can keep >using it, people can feel it is a bug. People will decide from what >they gather from @larges, as their nearest technical/legal pole of >responsible and authoritative competence. > >jfc > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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