- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total

12 18

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Sebastian Ricciardi April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Whoever you might be, you´re far from conservative in what you send. Don´t worry, I´m liberal in what I accept. LOL S. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Martes, 15 de Abril de 2008 06:08 p.m. To: Sebastian Ricciardi; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Adam Peake'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Cc: 'At-Large writ small' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy Sebastian and all, I knew Jon well, and always disagreed with him on this. Thankfully this was only an informational RFC, and as such should be viewed in that light. Certainly it was not meant as gospel. Unfortunately Jon took this addage of his to hart, and as a result it was a factor, if not a major one, in his early demise, god rest his soul... -----Original Message----- >From: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi(a)fibertel.com.ar> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 1:46 PM >To: 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, 'Adam Peake' <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >ALAC and the @Large community would be benefited from the "Robustness >Principle" enounced by Jon Postel in RFC 1122: > >"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" > >Best regards, > >Sebastian > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer >Sent: Domingo, 13 de Abril de 2008 12:25 p.m. >To: Adam Peake >Cc: At-Large writ small >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of >Interest Policy > >Adam Peake wrote: >> The code of conduct is excessive, how about >> replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a >> collegial and cooperative manner. The end. >> >> Really is a bizarre document. >> > >Seconded! > >--Wendy > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 13/04/2008 >01:45 p.m. > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 >09:12 a.m. > > >egards, 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 09:12 a.m. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 09:12 a.m.

2 1

ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Dear Community members: The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework. he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed. Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May. The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:20080331… French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- 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

14 24

Australian Privacy Commissioner to Issue Breach Notification Guidelines
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

All, From several of our insiders at the commission, the push was to lesson privacy rights early on, now that trend has been reversed due to public outrage. This may be why now the details are being kept closely concealed. Of course I cannot and will not reveal our sources for obvious reasons. April 15, 2008) Australia's privacy commissioner Karen Curtis plans to issue draft guidelines regarding data breach notification to help companies address the issue while the details of the Privacy Act revision continue to be hammered out. Government agencies and businesses have contacted the privacy commissioner's office with questions about handling data security breaches. The guidelines will be voluntary; commentary on the guidelines will be accepted through June 16, 2008. The Australian Law Reform Commission's review of the 20-year-old Privacy Act is expected later this year, and it may be some time before new laws are enacted. http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23539443-15306,00.html 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] [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Ross and all, I have to agree totally with Ross'es comments and analysis here. The anti-privacy bigots seem to be unwilling to relent and not satisfied with what limited access that they have now to Whois data. I cannot see any meaningful purpose to yet again another Whois review or "Study group" that would bare any useful fruit. Our members still remain unchanged in our already stated position on Whois, Whois privacy, and Whois accuracy. I do not believe that our members position will change irregardless of whatever goading, or other emphrical/slanderous remarks to the contrary we may be subjected to, as we have been subjected to repeatedly, and again on this forum recently. Frankly it is my own opinion that registrants privacy rights have been abused or otherwise abridged far too frequently and with malice and forethought by members of this very forum amongst other ICANN constituency members, in particular RIAA members whom are members of the IPC. Users non-registrants privacy rights also have been continually abused also by the RIAA/IPC unabated even after loosing nearly every case that has gone before a judge and after the RIAA has been sanctioned financially for their nearly terrorist legal tactics. Why on earth the ICANN bod and staff has allowed that organization along with it's european counterparts to remain members of the IPC is utterly unbelievable and appalling! Quite frankly it is long past time for these anti-privacy right bigots and their followers to have their credentials yanked by DOC. I also know that my position and our members position is widely shared. See:http://w2.eff.org/share/petition/ http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 11:38 AM >To: >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a delaying >tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has been studied >to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, nor geared >towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the analysis, if >any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. > >I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the notion >of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly doubt >that the results will point us in any different direction than what >we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. Worse >still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals for >their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open >database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further. > >/ross > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a >> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report back >> to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along >> with other issues. >> >> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has >> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO >> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their opinions >> on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >> >> This morning, it seemed as though there was consensus that yes, more >> study (provided it's circumscribed and directed at yielding some sort of >> action on the issue) is required. Wendy took an opposing view, which I'm >> sure she would be glad to share with you. WebWatch's view is that more >> study is needed, and in fact we are studying the issue ourselves. We are >> about to put a survey into the field that will be statistically >> representative of New York State only (because it is being funded by the >> NY State Attorney General's office). The survey is about online fraud in >> general, but of the 30 questions, I have put in some related to ICANN >> and WHOIS, for instance, have you ever registered a domain name, have >> you ever heard of the WHOIS database, have you ever used it to help you >> make a decision about whether to use a Web site's services or not, was >> it useful, etc. >> >> Below is our (WebWatch's) response, then below that are the action steps >> for the study group, if you want to use that as a template. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brendler, Beau >> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:57 PM >> To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: Whois study group -- category rankings >> >>>From Beau Brendler and Consumer Reports WebWatch >> >> We believe all seven categories are worth further study. Here's how we >> think they should be ranked in order of priority: >> >> 1. (5) Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse. >> 2. (7) WHOIS data accuracy. >> 3. (1) WHOIS misuse. >> 4. (4) Demand and motivation for use of privacy services. >> 5. (2) Compliance with data protection laws/registrar accreditation >> agreements. >> 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement/dispute resolution >> requests. >> 7. (3) Availability of privacy services. >> >> WebWatch's perspective on WHOIS could be almost characterized as similar >> to that of law enforcement or the FTC. Oversimply stated, we are >> interested in seeing a compromise that would allow a consumer to use >> accurate WHOIS data to help determine the credibility of a Web site with >> which the consumer is about to do business, while not compromising, say, >> the right of Burmese citizens to create Web sites to describe the >> conditions within their country without fear of being tracked down and >> harmed by their government via WHOIS data. >> >> I will also ask the ALAC to weigh in and report back offline with any >> additional information. The north American region seems to have the >> strongest feelings on this issue. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> From: owner-gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster >> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:56 PM >> To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April >> 2008 at 15:00 UTC] >> >> >> Thanks to all who could make our short-notice kick-off call on WHOIS >> studies. We will be meeting on Tuesdays at the same time and we have a >> short window by which to recommend to the GNSO Council areas for further >> study (if any) on WHOIS (currently due to the Council by 24 April). >> Following is a short overview of our call, key deliverables for next >> week and next steps. >> >> 1. Overview >> >> The group discussed how to proceed. We first discussed whether studies >> should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be >> deciding to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be >> done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical >> that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched >> parties on WHOIS issues. We also discussed certain areas that might be >> studied further, such as the potential impact on registrars operating in >> countries with strict privacy laws if those countries were to begin >> enforcing those laws (in the gTLD space). There was the concern that >> new WHOIS-related issues will arise that will require consideration >> notwithstanding the current WHOIS "stalemate", such as issues related to >> IDNs, greater privacy enforcement by countries, etc..., that may warrant >> further study. >> >> I described the format and content of the summary "Report on Public >> Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" of Feb. 25, 2008. Note in >> particular that the study suggestions are grouped into seven topic >> areas. >> >> 1. WHOIS misuse >> 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation >> agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and motivation >> for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime >> and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute >> resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy >> >> These seven areas can be thought of as topical questions for further >> study. If the consensus of the group is to proceed to identify specific >> areas for further study (meaning rather than recommending that studies >> not be conducted), the group might find it useful to decide first which >> of these groupings address questions you think having data about would >> inform the debate (see Key Deliverables below). >> >> There was one question about whether a budget exists to conduct studies. >> >> I responded that there is no pre-set budget but there is a place >> holder in the budget that the policy development group has submitted, >> and there is the understanding and expectation that the Council may >> request studies that ICANN would engage in. Also, I noted that there is >> a gating process -- the Council has specifically noted in its >> resolutions that it would first identify certain studies that it thought >> should then be priced out, and then, after those estimates are provided, >> make any specific requests with those estimates in mind. We also note >> that costs for various studies could vary significantly based on size, >> scope, complexity, etc. >> >> 2. Key deliverables >> >> - Everyone will read the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on >> Further Studies of WHOIS" - link provided by Glen and below >> >> - Everyone will consider the threshold question of whether WHOIS should >> be studied further -- whether any studies of WHOIS would make a >> meaningful impact. We will discuss this further on the next call. >> >> - Everyone will review the suggestions with an eye to whether/or which >> proposed studies would rise to your short favorites list -- or those you >> think should not be done. We did not discuss this on the call, but if >> the group would like to email these to me ahead of time, say by Friday, >> I could total up the results of this initial view for the call. >> >> Again, as I suggested on the call, to approach the question of which of >> 25 suggestions you might support, you may find it useful to first >> consider which of the groupings address questions you think that having >> data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which >> questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those >> particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination >> of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases we have >> indicated that the different study proposals answer slightly different >> questions. In some cases we indicate that some of the approaches are >> likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to >> be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions asked >> by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the questions >> asked by each grouping as follows: >> >> >> 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? >> >> 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem >> that needs to be solved? >> >> 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? >> >> 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being >> >> used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? >> >> 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? >> >> 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law >> enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? >> >> 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? >> >> - Staff will check on the status of an earlier study on the economics of >> the DNS that we understand to have been approved by the ICANN Board but >> not completed to-date. >> >> - Recruit ISP representative -- in process >> >> 3. Next steps >> >> - Next call Tuesday April 15 (a yucky day in the US, I note) >> - See tasks listed in "key deliverables" above. >> - Email with any questions. >> >> Also, please feel free to correct or add to my summary. >> >> Thanks, Liz >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ 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

Results of ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey
by Richard Jimmerson April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) worked together to conduct a survey to capture IPv6 penetration data in the ARIN region. The survey took place in March of 2008 and an analysis of the results was presented by kc claffy of CAIDA during the ARIN XXI meeting in Denver, Colorado, last week. You can find the link to this presentation on the top-right corner of ARIN's IPv6 wiki at: http://www.getipv6.info We encourage community members to post IPv6 experiences, knowledge and resources on the ARIN IPv6 wiki. Also, be sure to check back there soon for data from the 8 April ARIN IPv6 Main Event, where participants connected to an IPv6-only network. Regards, Richard Jimmerson Chief Information Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Danny Younger April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Alan and Wendy, Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to point out what still is missing. We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs. At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have been certified. I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue. The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure". Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure must have thought that they were crafting a document for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of course, no decertification process is outlined within. You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body if you continue to carry this much noncontributing dead wood on your membership roster. At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

6 6

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability FrameworkandConflicts of Interest Policy
by Thompson, Darlene April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Oh, no worries, I do not require "education" by imaginary people or their imaginary groups. And, as Jacqueline said, I, too, am not staff but a volunteer. N-CAP does not have any staff and that is who I am representing here (NOT government). Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:25 PM To: Thompson, Darlene; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability FrameworkandConflicts of Interest Policy Darlene and all, Yes it is true that some of the ALS staff are greatly in need of education. The users are not so much in such great need of education. Users should be and will be the educators to ALS staff members it appears to me thus far, unless particular members of the ALAC staff are so erogant as to be less than excpeting of that great lack in education and definate need to recieve it. I shall continue to endevor to share what knowledge I have, am learning, and shall continue to learn with the ALAC staff, whom seems to be less than able or willing to learn on thier own verition. We also all should try to remember that educaton is an ongoing process although some knowledge already obtained by some of us whom are professionals in the IT industry, such as myself have not adaquately shared what knowledge they do have regarding information that has been known for several if not many yesrs that has only recently become factors and issues in the operation of the Internet at a very basic level which has a direct effect on all users. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:59 AM >To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >I *SO* agree with Jacqueline on this. > >How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that >haven't been educated. This should be our major thrust right now if we >actually want community involvement. > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >Jacqueline A. Morris >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:03 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart >Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Evan >IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, > >brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I >haven't >read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the >document. > > I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if >we >haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE >we >ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info >out to >their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that >includes >a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then >they >can try to comment. >And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period >of >time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. > >Jacqueline >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >and >Conflicts of Interest Policy > >> >> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN >staff >> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >> >> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so >much >> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >> exists. >> >> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste >extremely >> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >> public to them. >> >> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we >are >> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful >inclination >> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >> serves. >> >> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and >to >> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough >to >> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and >attract >> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >> >> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral >to >> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and >this >> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and >require >> significant background information supplied in the local street >language. >> >> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest >sin >> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >> >> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That >ALAC >> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >> image appears to indicate that: >> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >> serve its mandate >> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >> serves >> 4) all of the above >> >> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by >a >> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >> >> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional >obligations. >> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can >be >> handled with common sense and discretion. >> >> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the >public >> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that >education. >> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >> >> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ >ALAC >> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >> >> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >> NARALO chair. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list s >.icann.org >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ 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] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Robert Guerra April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Seeing that there's a lot of people cc'd on the message - well, I will keep my message concise and suggest recommendations on how to move ahead Darlene and others raise good points regarding the great challenges NGOs, user groups, and ALS have to engage, consult and contribute to ongoing discussions @ ICANN. Unlike the industry and government actors who paid for for their active involvement @ ICANN, ALS's and ALAC members at times find it a great challenge to find the required time, energy and funding to participate. ICANN's support is appreciated, however for it to truly seek and engage users - it needs to do much more. Active engagement for civil society actors is not a top down process, but a bottom-up one - one that requires far more time and effort to seek comments, and from there, a formulated mutually agreed to position. For users - such as the internet using public - to be involved, they need to have the issues and ongoing policy debates translated into a language they can understand . Materials - such as documentation, and background documents would be very helpful, as would a pro-active press strategy that engages the popular press , radio and blogging community. ICANN could do a lot more in this respect. If ICANN wishes to support and encourage users to participate in ongoing policy issues - then ICANN should find ways to attend, and participate where users are active . ICANN, in my view should expect not that users come to it - but instead reach out and be more present in spaces, communities, and events where user communities are active. Interviews and engagement of the popular media could also help a great deal. Outreach and engagement is not something that can be done easily. it takes time, energy and effort. Not managing expectations will lead to disillusionment and likely generate negative press - something ICANN likely does not want. In closing, I hope this message summarizes some of the sentiments expressed to-date and some constructive ideas on the type and approach to outreach that has been long promised - but not yet delivered. regards Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra ALAC , North America Rep

1 0

ALAC Review - Request for Input
by At-Large Staff April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Dear All: We have been asked to forward you the below from the team performing the ALAC Review. We hope that you will take this opportunity to provide your views to the review if you have not already done so. --- This email follows our earlier request for feedback to the Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee, being conducted by Westlake Consulting Limited. The closing date for submissions is Friday 18th April. Therefore, if you wish to provide any input or feedback on any of the individual questions in the Terms of Reference <http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-review-final-tor-20jun07.pdf> , or ³to contribute observations or information about any aspect of the role, structure or operation of the ALAC,² please email alacreview(a)westlakenz.com by Friday 18th April. The main issues the Review Team has to address are: - [To determine] whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and, - If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. If you would prefer a telephone or Skype call, rather than responding by email, please send your contact details to the same email address, alacreview(a)westlakenz.com, and a member of the Westlake Team will contact you shortly. Among other matters the Terms of Reference note, ³It will be important to consider different perspectives relevant to the ALAC, including the views of individual Internet users, the ALSs, the RALOs, past and current Members of the ALAC, and many others within (and perhaps outside) the ICANN community.² As a result, the Review Team is seeking as wide a range of relevant views as possible. Confidentiality: the Westlake Review Team¹s policy on confidentiality is as follows: ³Your feedback will be treated in confidence. It will not be shared outside the four consultants who comprise the review team (and our office support staff). We might quote from your feedback in our report to ICANN, but we will not identify you as the author. So please feel free to be frank with us.² Westlake Consulting NZ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2