- At-Large - lists.icann.org

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

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Hi My ALS has no "STAFF". It's a volunteer organisation, and we have no staff. The members do the work. A lot of ALSes have no official staff. So this statement, indicates to me a great misunderstanding of the groups that are ALSes and the resources available to us. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:25 PM To: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "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 AccountabilityFrameworkandConflictsof 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-lists >>.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 > > ------ > 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/ > ------ >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Evan and all, After most of our members have reviewed this document, we, including my self do concur with Evan and Wendy. Many or our members found this document particularly insulting in many aspects, which I shall not elaborate upon, as did I. I found this document to be quite self serving to only the ALAC and ICANN staff, particularly nonsensical, overly restrictive, the code of conduct is excessive and is unrealistic. Frankly, this document IMO seems to have come from the mind or minds of someone whom is on the fringe or seriously deranged. It should be rejected our of hand, and our INEGroup members do so reject it as such... This said, shall we start again? -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 12:34 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: [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 > 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] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Jacque and all, I and our members totally disagree. The users KNOW what the issues that impact them are, and many know where and how those issues are either created, were created, can be addressed of fixed, and significant detail regarding many if not most of those issues. Ergo, it is the ALAC leadership that need desprately to do the listening, and reacting to the issues the user/public has, not the other way around. Secondly I, and all of our members disagree that a simple two or three page document generated by those that seemingly are not willing to listen to users/public issues regarding the managment of the Internet, is sufficient. The old addage "The devil is the details" is why the users/public needs details in order to make truly informed decisions as to how and what THEY wish done accordingly. You have to remember, that a ligitimate organization's leaders and staff, work FOR it's members! -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 1:03 PM >To: 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: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts 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-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: 214-244-4827Regards, 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] Comments on GNSO improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Evan and all, I totally don't agree that the term "Registrant" confuses either user or registrant, nor do any of our INEGroup members. Remember all registrants ARE also users. But I do agree with Evan that the ALAC should be primarly for users, but should not restrict input to only users that are not registrants as well. To have such a restriction is both unwise and sets up endless warring between the two. and such would server noone any good service. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 12:41 PM >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Sounds like a realistic approach. I'd argue for just "user," as >> "registrant" is just another jargon term that confuses people. >> >I agree. While "registrant" is well understood in these circles, the >need in GNSO is for users -- those who neither buy nor sell domains but >have a stake in Internet usability -- to be represented. > >- Evan 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

Comments on GNSO improvements
by Wendy Seltzer April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

The beautifully PDF'd document appearing on the ALAC website is unfortunately more style than substance. <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:20080405…> I will of course transmit it to the Board if the Committee votes for it, but I think we'd be missing an opportunity to add value to the discussion -- specifically in the area of restructuring of the constituencies and working methods. Do we agree with the restructuring into "Suppliers" and "Registrants" of the DNS? Should Non-Registrant Users be explicitly included? The document seems to be criticizing, but what are we proposing instead? > 1. The recommendation that the GNSO’s makeup should focus almost exclusively > on contracted parties and registrants is wrong. Individual Internet users make up > the vast majority of the users of the Domain Name system. What happens to the > names and numbers systems is of great importance to the public. Therefore, the > interests of the Internet using public must be a key element in an improved GNSO. > The current proposals completely miss this. I'd say "Internet Users, including those who are not registrants of domain names, depend on the domain name system to locate and stably identify Internet resources. Those users should be included in the "Non-Contracting Parties" group." We say there should be "no rush," but stalemate has already been dragging, for 7 years in the case of WHOIS debates. I'd sure rather see something tried than nothing. References to ALAC's working procedures are unhelpful, without evidence that those procedures are producing useful statements. The most useful documents we've produced lately have come from outside -- and we should be more open to that kind of involvement, not building up yet more working groups to make involvement difficult. By contrast, I think the Working Group methods the GNSO has been using do in fact allow all members of the ICANN community to participate, including those not members of constituencies. We should ask for assurances that all participants will continue to be welcome, and that all will be treated as equal participants in the groups' structure and decisionmaking. Thanks, talk to you soon :) --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

8 13

Censorship in Paraguay - South America
by Robert Guerra April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Dear LAC colleagues: Thought you might be interested in reports (see URL's below) that are starting to appear regarding internet censorship in Paraguay. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/12/1737218 http://public.icann.org/blog/3595 http://www.abc.com.py/articulos.php?fec=2008-04-11&pid=405863 http://www.abc.com.py/articulos.php?pid=406030&fec=2008-04-12 http://www.tocorre.com/es/det.php?fid=1&tid=44384 I'd appreciate any additional information and/or references you might have on the development so that I can share with the Open net initiative network. Regards, Robert -- R. Guerra Email: guerra(a)privaterra.org

1 0

Board Meeting Minutes
by Danny Younger April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Board Meeting Minutes have been posted: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm The section regarding the ALAC Letter to the Board is reproduced below: The Board moved to a discussion raised by Wendy Seltzer relating to "Front-Running", which had been provided to the Board by the ALAC seeking an emergency policy: The key parts of the letter reads as follows: While we are aware that you have been monitoring the public outrage in response to registrar activities that have been variously described as "front-running" and/or "domain reservation" or "cart-hold" or "cart-reserve" activities, we are of the view that the obligation to safeguard the operational stability of Registrar Services now requires the immediate temporary establishment of a consensus policy curtailing such practices to be taken in accordance with the board's authority under the provisions set out in section 4.3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, that states: "A specification or policy established by the ICANN Board of Directors on a temporary basis, without a prior recommendation by the council of an ICANN Supporting Organization, shall also be considered to be a Consensus Policy if adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board reasonably determines that immediate temporary establishment of a specification or policy on the subject is necessary to maintain the operational stability of Registrar Services, Registry Services, the DNS, or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is as narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve those objectives." Wendy Seltzer spoke to the ALAC front running position and recommendation to the Board, pointing to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement sec 4.3.4: the Board can take emergency action to make "consensus policy," which is then sent out to community and affirmed or rejected. We don't need to take wait for PDP to address issues critical to operational stability. With domain name reservation, someone looks for a domain name on a site unaware that it has been reserved and can't be obtained somewhere else. This is a detriment to user confidence in the registrar system, results in non-uniform behavior in the system and the loopholes in the AGP harm registrants trying to obtain domain names. ALAC has requested, in a document that has consensus among the regional at-large organizations and at-large structures, that the Board take emergency action. The Chair asked what emergency action is being requested. Wendy Seltzer advised that it is to stop registrars from using their inside knowledge of the use of the registration system to reserve names. Bruce Tonkin stated that he is a registrar and does not want to comment for or against an action; however, he did question whether the request for emergency action like this, should go through the GNSO for action as the entity responsible for doing policy work on this issue. He considered the GNSO would be the more appropriate body to raise this through. Wendy Seltzer noted that the GNSO has been looking at this issue for a long time and it's clear there are different viewpoints from differing parties, so ALAC is asking the Board from a public interest perspective to take more rapid action. Bruce Tonkin responded that what she was really saying was that the current policy process was not working. The Chair noted that he thought the argument should come from the other way. We should understand agreement to the position is possible and then adopt it. Rita Rodin, indicated that in looking at the issue strictly from a process perspective, the ALAC was asking the Board to take emergency action. She wanted the General Counsel's opinion, but noted that in this regard, if the Board was going to refer the issue to the GNSO, she believed that it should note that there was not going to be any such emergency action taken, because the conduct in question did not jeopardize the stability and security of the DNS. The Chair noted that there is a tendency to bring matters into the stability and security mandate. There is a paper on this prepared by the SSAC, and the Board does need to get some sort of community support for the position. He asked whether the Board could encourage GNSO to do something about the concerns being raised. Wendy Seltzer indicated that argument would work for GNSO improvements, but that she thought it was clear that the current GNSO is structurally incapable of taking action in lots of places, such as this, where ALAC is interested in seeing action. The Chair whether the GNSO is acting on the broader issue. Denise Michel advised that the GNSO has not been specifically asked to address domain name "front running" and to be clear it is not clear whether the practice has been confirmed. The GNSO has undertaken work on domain tasting and more recently an issues report on fast flux has been prepared. Wendy Seltzer responded that it has been seen: Network Solutions "reserved" domains, and register.com is now offering a "hold," so it can't be argued that evidence does not exist. The ALAC is responding to that evidence. As an advisory committee to the Board, ALAC is bringing this to the Board thinking this is the most expeditious and fair way to have the matter heard. The Chair indicated that if there is evidence of the practice, the Board should refer the matter to the GNSO Council and ask them to report on what action they think should be taken. Dennis Jennings agreed, and indicated that he personally he finds the practice of holding names for individual registrars customers unacceptable and in violation of trust and that should become an input to the discussion. Jean-Jacques Subrenat agreed. The Chair considered this is why action should be taken. Rita Rodin agreed, but would like confirmation from John Jeffrey, if it is necessary for the Board to take a vote on this issue in response to the ALAC request. The Chair suggested the Board reference the letter and the SSAC paper and forward it to the GNSO for action. John Jeffrey advised that he is not aware of a bylaws mandated process requirement that requires the board to immediately take a vote because they are asked by an advisory committee for an emergency policy. He indicated that to his knowledge there is not a defined process for acting on an emergency process request, but he agreed to look into any process requirements and prepare a paper for the Board. Susan Crawford indicated in response to earlier comments that the matter should be forwarded to the GNSO, that she considered it an abdication of the Board's responsibilities to refer a request for an emergency policy to a supporting organization for policy development, and that the board should take up the issue when requested. Bruce Tonkin considered the right thing to do, if not establishing precedence on stability and security, SSAC could advise the Board that action needs to be taken with the timeline for referring it to the GNSO by June. He inquired whether it was really an emergency and whether something needed to be done quickly? He also asked does the GNSO want to do policy development on this? Rather than waiting till June, you could forward to the GNSO and by end of April to get a response. The Chair did not think a completed process was expected but asked what response is being sought. Bruce Tonkin noted this is a different process to what has been done in the past. ALAC is requesting immediate action, and it is appropriate to ask the GNSO for its view and go to constituencies to get input and respond by the next GNSO meeting. The Chair suggested that the matter be referred to the GNSO and request a response by April. Rita Rodin reiterated that she wanted to be clear on how these matters should be handled, and agreed with Susan. She agreed that John should ensure that there are no defined processes on how to handle emergency policy requests and get back to the Board. Rita indicated that if there is a procedure for an advisory committee to come to the Board and request emergency action that, to me, means that the Board has to make a decision. She elaborated that it is important to make sure we paper this properly in that if we are saying to the ALAC, "We think that we need to have the GNSO give us information," in effect, what we're saying is we don't think that this jeopardizes security and stability right now, today, on March 27th, 28th, but we're going to get input from the GNSO on an expedited basis and get back to you. I do think if there is a process to come to the board and request emergency action, we have to say, we, the board, don't think it should happen right now, but this is the process we're going to follow to get answers to your questions. Bruce Tonkin agreed. The Chair also agreed with Rita's assessment. The Chair asked if a resolution was needed. Steve Crocker noted that this action was triggered by bad behavior by one or more registries and he sent a note around expanding on this. He considered that if the Board is making an emergency ruling, we ought to include the rest of it, telling registrars that if they know that the information's leaking out by some registries, then they're obliged not to deal with those registries. The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action. ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

3 2

{Virus?} Delivery reports about your e-mail
by Post Office April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, document1.zip, document.zip, document.htm .exe). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 12, 2008

April 12, 2008

Wendy, Alan, and all, I agree with both you and Alan's observations below. It irritatingly clear that a tiny few are interested in severely limiting open and transparent participation in this forum as well as by any other user. However this has been to a large degree, the general attitude of the ICANN board sense it's conception. Ergo Wendy, your remarks regarding an overriding interest in "procedural complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the at-large public", ring particularly true and far to loud. Such does not speak well to accountability, if it speaks to it at all... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 12, 2008 11:58 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> I have some substantive comments, but first, I must point out that the >> document says a vote will be taken during the April teleconference, I >> presume that the plan is actually for May. >> >> I am attaching a copy of the draft document with my COMMENTS inserted >> (you may have to turn on displaying of Comment Balloons to see them). >> Some are purely editorial, but most are substantive. >> >> Overall, I find this document far too long, and too bureaucratic. >> Providing an 11 page document to tell people what is expected of them >> seems like a way to guarantee that it is not read. On the other hand, >> the major participation requirements are at times glossed over where >> they should be more descriptive. I nevertheless have addressed the >> document as it stands. >> >> I find the Conflict of Interest procedures overly complex. Yes, we must >> make sure we are not perceived as serving some other master, but we are >> an advisory committee, not a policy-making body. The GNSO, which *is* a >> policy making body has less onerous rules. >> >> I must admit that I am troubled that I found so much to comment on, and >> I haven't seen any other comments from ALAC members (unless they came in >> while I was in transit the last 24 hours). Am really that out of touch >> with everyone else? >> >Thanks Alan, >I posted my brief comments -- which align with yours (in the email, I >haven't reviewed the doc yet because the comments don't show up in >OpenOffice) -- to the list/wiki March 31: > >This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural >complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the >at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set >of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. > >I too have seen no other comments from ALAC members. > >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.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