- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Draft ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework
by At-Large Staff April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

Dear All: At the request of the Chair, the Staff have amended the draft Draft ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework, attempting to incorporate the comments received during the comment period. The ALAC Finance and Budget Subcommittee will meet tomorrow and, amongst other things, finalise this statement so that it can be transmitted to the Board of ICANN. I am sure they would be helped in their deliberations if those who commented in particular were to review the revisions. We have therefore provided a URL which makes it easier to see the changes from the draft which was the subject of the community consultation, and also a URL for the summary of comments received. The various URLs are below. We hope you will understand that with respect to some issues there are clearly differences of view; we have tried to represent them all faithfully. We hope that we have succeeded. Note that in one case, the comments of B Schombe of Africa, we have enquiries as to the precise meaning of the statements. Draft Statement: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2 Summary of Comments: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/18_april_2008:20080418 112809-0-19712/files/AL-ALAC-BUD-SC-0408-1%20WS%20listing%20of%20comments%20 received.htm Page to view changes incorporating comments made: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=al_ala c_bud_sc_0308_1_2&mode=source&new_revision_id=20080421160925&old_revision_id =20080415145205&Button=Compare+Revisions URL for meeting agenda and related documents: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?22_april_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

{Virus?} MESSAGE COULD NOT BE DELIVERED
by The Post Office April 20, 2008

April 20, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, text.cmd, text1.zip, text.zip). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

{Virus?} alac@icann.org
by Automatic Email Delivery Software April 20, 2008

April 20, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, text.com) Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

GNSO action on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2008

April 20, 2008

I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. The motion is appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely). It was supported by all constituencies except 2 of the 3 Registrar members. The Registrar Constituency had proposed an alternative motion wherein the Board budget measure of charging the $0.20 for all new domains (including those deleted under the AGP) should be implemented first, and the original motion (the one that passed) only apply if the budget action proved unsuccessful. Alan ======== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

8 11

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Evan Leibovitch April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. > To clarify:, Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I believe this balance has worked well. - Evan

2 1

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 18 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.84% | 14 | 11.89% | 152874 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 5.50% | 6 | 14.89% | 191423 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.09% | 11 | 6.31% | 81104 | evan at telly.org 8.26% | 9 | 6.23% | 80057 | lists at privaterra.info 5.50% | 6 | 6.45% | 82930 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 4.59% | 5 | 5.07% | 65213 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.50% | 6 | 3.27% | 41999 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 3.67% | 4 | 4.69% | 60228 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 1.83% | 2 | 4.71% | 60532 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 2.75% | 3 | 2.99% | 38422 | jefsey at jefsey.com 2.75% | 3 | 2.52% | 32371 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.75% | 3 | 2.11% | 27113 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 2.75% | 3 | 2.10% | 27015 | veni at veni.com 2.75% | 3 | 1.67% | 21446 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 2.75% | 3 | 1.52% | 19497 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 2.75% | 3 | 1.43% | 18409 | johnl at iecc.com 0.92% | 1 | 3.24% | 41613 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 1.83% | 2 | 2.28% | 29349 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 0.92% | 1 | 3.07% | 39431 | denise.michel at icann.org 1.83% | 2 | 1.42% | 18238 | brenbe at consumer.org 1.83% | 2 | 1.39% | 17842 | sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar 1.83% | 2 | 1.23% | 15846 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.83% | 2 | 1.18% | 15119 | namecritic at blogs.pn 1.83% | 2 | 1.02% | 13138 | wendy at seltzer.com 0.92% | 1 | 1.39% | 17919 | fsylla at gmail.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.87% | 11133 | vanda at uol.com.br 0.92% | 1 | 0.80% | 10326 | iza at anr.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.67% | 8578 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.60% | 7729 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 0.92% | 1 | 0.55% | 7104 | noreply at icann.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6699 | richardj at arin.net 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6669 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.49% | 6343 | vint at google.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.47% | 6027 | roessler at does-not-exist.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.44% | 5623 | franck.martin at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 109 |100.00% | 1285359 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Hi Jeanette Given the cultural differences between regions, the decision on membership etc was left up to the individual regions to determine when they were forming. NARALO very strongly wanted individual membership, some of the other regions equally storngly felt that they wanted only group membership, and hence one must be part of a member group. Of course, this is open to change by the GAs of the regions - but I don't think that any mindset will change soon. However, ther has been some discussion about forming a 6th RALO - a global one for individual users. This idea hasn't gained much traction as far as I remember, though. Jacqueline Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that > the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet > users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no > direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they > join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large > group out there on the net. > Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and > processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them > to change some time in the future? > Thanks, jeanette > > Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >>> >>> >> To clarify:, >> >> Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and >> enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal >> representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively >> have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for >> voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the >> Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. >> >> We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have >> the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization >> that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I >> recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to >> get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. >> This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which >> is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. >> >> This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a >> reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not >> everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I >> believe this balance has worked well. >> >> - Evan >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Thompson, Darlene April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

I'm not at all sure, Jeanette, but its in the back of my mind that when that NARALO needs to make a policy statement, that the voices of the individuals are counted just the same as the ALSs. This, of course, does not apply to votes - I'm just talking over-all consensus here. Is this fair? Well, I'm not sure but as an ALS representative, I represent multiple people, not just my own opinion. Therefore, I do think that it should be given more weight. And people like Beau carry TONS more weight than me! So, I have no firm opinion on this - this is just my mind meanderings. D ________________________________ From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thu 4/17/2008 1:51 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris] Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them to change some time in the future? Thanks, jeanette Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >> > To clarify:, > > Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and > enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal > representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively > have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for > voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the > Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. > > We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have > the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization > that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I > recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to > get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. > This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which > is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. > > This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a > reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not > everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I > believe this balance has worked well. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Individual users and ALAC
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Evan, Jeanette and all, Jeanette, I an our members largely share you concerns. And of late the NARALO, EURALO, and this global ALAC list have seemingly sought to thwart public participation which is one of several reasons the silent majority to which Evan speaks to, fears to participate actively. I myself have been "Moderated" largely due to a decided lack of interest by others whom control these ALSes public input mechanisms, yet as spokesman for a fair number of users all of whom are also registrants, but yet share significantly the concerns of interests in issues that effect them directly or indirectly. Such is an example of perhaps why individual users are so reluctant, be they silent not due to choice, but due to fear of repudiation, ridicule, or other much more hazardous reprocutions that may be personally damaging and long lasting. As such, other non-ICANN NNW's have formed starting in 2001, such as http://itp.nyu.edu/blogs/ecm292/2008/02/26/nnwkaa-30/ that are decidedly taking things into their own hands with the supprot of other government agencies such as DHS so that some of these concerns can be heard, addressed, and hopefully resolutions effected rather than endlessly discussed amongst a "Chosen" few, decided by that same "Chosen few", and rarely a effective resolution effected, such as Whois privacy, access, and accuracy, phishing, spam, and proliferation of child poronography. Many of these problems have their roots in DNS itself, others are more complicated and complex in nature but almost always revolve around security aspects, or lack there of, imposed or not yet effected by both government and private sector actors, yet with known methods or correction, by such as Google, Wikipedia, registries and registrats, ISP's, IAP's, and other Internet service providers/ecommerce companies of various sorts. Some good examples of the danger that some of these "Chosen few" have already exposed you to are evident in their DNS configurations such as ICANN.ORG, telly.org, which is Evans domain, IETF.ORG, franceatlarge.org, and recently, alvestrand.no whom is taking submittions for their online forum WG if IDN's. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=telly.org&token=251076695… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=06706b9b19… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&token=0… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=alvestrand.no&token=07e03… And these are just a few or the tip or the huge iceburg, so to speak... -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 17, 2008 11:35 AM >To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Individual users and ALAC > >Hello, Jeanette. >> What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't >> provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are >> affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to >> articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of >> course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there >> on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN >> structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or >> do you expect them to change some time in the future? >Speaking personally and not in my capacity as NARALO Chair: > >I agree fully and passionately with the ICANN _intent_ behind At-Large, >which is to try to extract the view of the general public on its issues. >So far it has heard from vested interests (the business, IP, registry >and registrar communities) as well as those who are paid full time to >think about policy (GAC, NCUC). At-Large is none of that; while I >believe that the "public interest" is the single most important >constituency within ICANN, determining what is the public interest is a >HUGE challenge that At-Large has tried to do. Small steps have been >taken but far more lies ahead. > >So far, all the individuals who I have seen become involved in At-Large >are dedicated to knowing the issues, good at analysis, passionate about >policy, and vocal with their opinions. > >In other words, they have nothing in common with the general public At >Large. > >You only see them as a "large group" because they are the ones already >in front of you, shouting. The silent disinterested ones, the challenges >that we must reach, outnumber the current loud independents by hundreds >of thousands to one. > >The "independent users" are critical in policy building and >opinion-shaping, but they do not themselves resemble the great >disinterested masses that ICANN is trying to reach. These people >_should_ be in leadership or advocacy efforts within larger groups in >order to help achieve ICANN's mandate and affect / survey the greatest >number of public opinions. Having them sit as independents is IMO a >substantial waste of their talent. For this reason, I appreciate >measures that discourage independent participation and encourage >individuals to join (or create!) ALSs that can share their skill and >passion with a wider audience. (NOTE: I said discourage, not disallow). > >There are certainly many existing organizations that SHOULD be ALSs but >have neither the awareness or passion to be involved. The right person >within those orgs could easily change that situation and our individual >members are perfect candidates. Economies of scale -- in terms of >volunteer person-hours even more than money -- suggest that we need more >ALSs reaching the disinterested far more than we need to encourage the >growth of "audiences of one". > >I can say more, but I need to go out. I hope you're not sorry that you >asked. ;-) > >- 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 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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

May I also take this opportunity to suggest that any views on this subject would be of great interest to the at-large reviewers at Westlake consulting. I hope that you will all take the opportunity to send them your thoughts on these subjects; I know that many of you have strong views about this and it would be a shame if the reviewers didn't have a complete picture of the perspectives. On 17/04/2008 19:51, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them to change some time in the future? Thanks, jeanette Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >> > To clarify:, > > Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and > enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal > representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively > have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for > voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the > Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. > > We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have > the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization > that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I > recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to > get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. > This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which > is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. > > This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a > reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not > everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I > believe this balance has worked well. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1