- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [Fwd: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices]
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 7, 2007

May 7, 2007

I will send the request on and see about the feasibility of this. Needless to say, conducting this survey would be a substantial undertaking considering the size of the registrar marketplace. This is not by way of discouraging you or anyone else; I just want to make sure that this is not something that can be done overnight; it might require additional consulting or other resources, and this close to the end of the budget year that might be complex. There's no way that the At-Large budget or staff could undertake it, but then, this would it seems to me be something of interest to many other constituencies in any case, so it is likely that would not be asked of us in any case. May I suggest in the first instance that ALAC discuss this and formally resolve on the question. On 07/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > There was support for this research among ALAC members. Nick, what do > we need to do to move it forward? > > I updated to reflect John's suggestion on transfer process. > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:50:33 -0400 > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Here's my recommendation for a request to staff for registrar research. > I'd recommend this begin with review of registrar websites, perhaps to > be followed with direct communications if information is unavailable. > > Comments or changes welcome. > --Wendy > > > The At-Large Advisory Committee has heard complaints from individuals > about significant divergences among registrars on fees and practices > regarding domain name transfer and expired domain name redemption. At > least some registrants are not aware of these fees and practices at the > time they register names. Before ALAC can analyze whether these fees > and practices reflect a problem or the competitive market at work, we > would like to get more information about them. > > We therefore ask staff to develop a plan for surveying accredited > registrars on their practices. > > For each registrar, determine: > Transfer-away: > Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names > to another registrar? > If so, what is the fee? > Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of > registration? > Where and how is such disclosure made? > Is the fee subject to change during the registration period? > Can registrants actually get the authcodes required to transfer domains? > What is the process to get the authcode, including any fees charged? > > Redemption: > What is the redemption fee for an expired domain name? > Does the registrar itself register names its registrants have failed to > renew? > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

[Fwd: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices]
by Wendy Seltzer May 7, 2007

May 7, 2007

There was support for this research among ALAC members. Nick, what do we need to do to move it forward? I updated to reflect John's suggestion on transfer process. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:50:33 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Here's my recommendation for a request to staff for registrar research. I'd recommend this begin with review of registrar websites, perhaps to be followed with direct communications if information is unavailable. Comments or changes welcome. --Wendy The At-Large Advisory Committee has heard complaints from individuals about significant divergences among registrars on fees and practices regarding domain name transfer and expired domain name redemption. At least some registrants are not aware of these fees and practices at the time they register names. Before ALAC can analyze whether these fees and practices reflect a problem or the competitive market at work, we would like to get more information about them. We therefore ask staff to develop a plan for surveying accredited registrars on their practices. For each registrar, determine: Transfer-away: Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names to another registrar? If so, what is the fee? Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of registration? Where and how is such disclosure made? Is the fee subject to change during the registration period? Can registrants actually get the authcodes required to transfer domains? What is the process to get the authcode, including any fees charged? Redemption: What is the redemption fee for an expired domain name? Does the registrar itself register names its registrants have failed to renew? -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

www.icannalac.org
by Denise Michel May 6, 2007

May 6, 2007

Thank you for your request to have ICANN pay Jean Armour-Polly to maintain the information on www.icannalac.org as a consultant. I have consulted with Nick, looked at the impressive, current on line activity of the At-Large community, and I am in need of more input from you before responding to your request. ALAC members created www.icannalac.org to help inform and encourage a dialogue among members of ICANN’s At-Large community. It was intended to be the independent voice of the ALAC members, giving each of you a place to post views and news directly, without having to go through the clearance process ICANN requires staff/consultants follow when posting material. Further, it was created separate from www.icann.org to experiment with a different layout and on line tools to make the site more interactive. It seems that the site was used and maintained almost entirely by one member, Jean Armour Polly, during her tenure on the ALAC, and no ALAC members seem to have really used the site much since Jean left the committee in December 2006. This raises the question of whether an ALAC website separate from www.icann.org needs to be maintained if a consultant will be doing a majority of the posting (material will be cleared by ICANN if Jean is paid by ICANN), and the website is used to post information by staff/consultants rather than for interactive dialogue by ALAC members. Additionally, much has happened in the At-Large community over the last year that also should be considered along with your request. As you know, since the www.icannalac.org site was launched, the At-Large community has grown significantly, as has its on line presence - much to the credit of the ALAC and At-Large community leaders. Each At-Large region now has its own, independent website, and self-service mailing lists. The ALAC now has its own Wiki, which hosts a lot of information that the community appears to be using - documents, meeting recordings and minutes, etc. These new on line collaboration efforts seem to have taken on many of the functions that www.icannalac.org was meant to provide. Furthermore, ICANN has revamped its website templates, added more interactive tools, and will be re-examining its approval requirements for web posting. In light of all this, it would useful to get more input from you to help us evaluate your request for a consultant for www.icannalac.org. Here are some questions that would be helpful to hear from you on: 1) If the site can no longer be said to be independent (if ICANN is paying a consultant to post information and maintain it), is there any reason for the site to be maintained separate from the ALAC wiki, or an improved www.alac.icann.org? If yes, why? 2) In the past year, as previously noted, only one member of the ALAC really provided much content to the www.icannalac.org site. Do you have a new plan to ensure that – if the site continues to be supported by ICANN and a consultant – that the site will not continue to be updated by one person? 3) The www.alac.icann.org site is about to go through a major restructuring to provide up-to-date information, as requested by the community. If it were to incorporate facilities like blogs for ALAC members and others, and forums which allowed two-way integration to the mailing lists, providing that these would not be subject to ICANN clearance procedures, would this provide the independence and utility that the www.icannalac.org site was intended to provide? Are there any other such tools that would be needed by the ALAC? 4) As you know, there is more activity on the At-Large regional sites, the ALAC wiki, and the mailing lists than there is on www.icannalac.org. Do you have a plan to ensure that the www.icannalac.org site becomes more active and attracts more users? Are there parts of the site, such as the forums, which have been replaced by other methods of communication? If so, which ones? 5) What unique role in communications to the community does the www.icannalac.org site have, taking into account the other At-Large collaboration tools? I greatly appreciate your help in providing more clarity on whether additional financial support for www.icannalac.org is warranted, or whether the same objectives could be more readily achieved in other ways. Please email your input to staff(a)alac.icann.org and Nick and I will get back to you soon on this. Regards, Denise Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org denise.michel(a)icann.org

2 1

My comment on ALAC Review TOR
by Izumi AIZU May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

I have sent the following comment for the ALAC Review TOR, now on the ICANN web, but with PDF, so here is inline text version. best, izumi ---------- Comment on Proposed ToR for ALAC Review April 29, 2007 Izumi Aizu, An ALAC Member from Asia/Australia/Pacific region I think the proposed ToR is generally well structured and covers most of the important elements for the comprehensive review of AtLarge structure of ICANN. Thank you very much for the excellent preparatory work for this very important matter at ICANN. However, I think there are several points which need additional questions and analysis as follows. On PART I I assume that the external review should cover the entire relevance of the subject body, thus the TOR should be more explicit to address the appropriateness of the current overall ALAC framework as a whole. The Question 15 covers some aspect of organizational positioning of ALAC, in the context of Civil Society participation at ICANN. However, it suggests only one specific option but not others in an explicit manner. I think there are several ways worth to consider for making ICANN as a more effective multi-stakeholder organization. Therefore, I propose to add more specific options to be questions/analyzed such as: a) Should we give Board seats to the representatives of AtLarge? b) Should we form a new Supporting Organization, such as User SO? or c) Should we make AtLarge as one of the constituencies in the (reformed) GNSO, but separate from Non Commercial Users? PART II Structure On Question 15, as Vittorio already pointed out, it is rather misleading. I like to suggest the following alternative: What have been the significant factors that affected the RALO formation process? Are there distinct and different factors for each region which affected the RALO formation process, or are they faced with similar challenges? Another point to be added is the relationship of ALAC with other parts of ICANN. I propose the following questions to be added: How does ALAC interact with other constituencies of ICANN? Are they effective in achieving the ALAC's goal of providing advices from individual Internet users? Are there regular channel of communication in addition to the Liaisons to the Board, GNSO and CCNSO? Are there any Composition The TOR does not ask the question of the appropriateness of the current methodology of ALAC member selection or election process explicitly, that is ten members selected by RALO (Board for the interim period), and five by NomCom. I like to propose to add the following questions: Is the current ALAC member selection methodology appropriate, or is there any need to change that, ie public election should be used for all 15 members? Is the number of member, 15, appropriate, or too small or too large? and Assuming that the NomCom selection will continue, is the current balance of selecting ALAC members, five by NomCom and ten by RALO the best way to achieve ALAC's goal, or are there any other ways worth to consider and implement?" Internal Procedures Volunteer nature and Staff Support Given the nature of ALAC to represent individual users, unlike some constituencies of ICANN, ALAC members are mostly pure volunteers that means that their day-to-day work/business do not have direct involvement with Internet's core resource management such as Domain Name registration business or IP address allocation. This had significant impact on the way and effectiveness of ALAC work. The workloads of ALAC members have been quite high, yet it was often difficult to cope with the expected level work. That naturally requires good amount of support from the staff. Question 35 On ICANN support is rather too simple. More specific and detailed analysis of support from ICANN to ALAC, in terms of financial, institutional and staff support should are needed. I propose to add the following question: What kind of additional measures are needed in terms of financial, institutional and staff support in addition to the exiting ones if any? Outreach First, "Outreach" sounds like an one-way activity from ICANN to outside world (in my non-native English), but the important part is "Communication" between Internet users and ICANN through ALS/RALO/ALAC structure and functions in a two way manner. In this regard, languages play important role. The working language of ICANN has been English, but several regions have other language as significantly important common Linga Franca, ie French in some parts of Africa, Arabic for the Middle East and Spanish for Latin America and Caribbean region. Thus several RALOs need to use these languages in addition to English. Here, I propose the following question to be added: How are the linguistically and culturally diverse regional situations reflected in the operation of ALAC and ICANN? Are there any areas that require changes or improvements such as add some non-English language to be used by ICANN/ALAC? END --------------------- Note: The above comment is entirely personal and does not reflect any position of the organizations I am affiliated with.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Domain Tasting Issues Report
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

I believe it is imminently to be transmitted to the GNSO Council. On 04/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Many of you will recall the correspondence posted > below that indicated that the ALAC would have a > request finalized for an Issues Report on Domain > Tasting by April 30. What is the current status of > this initiative? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > As mentioned briefly at the GNSO Council meeting in > Lisbon, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is in > the process of submitting a request for an Issues > Report from ICANN staff on the subject of Domain > Tasting - specifically the exploitation of the 5-day > (or 120 hour) Add Grace Period during which a domain > can be deleted (among other things) for a full credit > of registration charges. > > In order to maximize the chances for a properly framed > Issues report and ultimately a successful PDP (if > deemed necessary), it has been recommended that the > ALAC seek support from interested GNSO constituencies > including their views of why the domain tasting policy > should be changed, the positive or negative effects of > such a change, and how such a change falls under the > scope of the GNSO PDP > (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA) and > Consensus Policies as defined in Registry agreements. > > Our intent is to have a draft request for an Issues > Report ready by April 23, and the request finalized by > April 30. I therefore request your input with due > haste. > > > Alan Greenberg > ALAC Liaison to the GNSO > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03383.html > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Minutes, Recordings, and Transcripts of At-Large meetings
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007

Dear colleagues: As many of you know, there have been difficulties and delays with minutes of At-Large meetings being posted expeditiously or in a consistent way. This email is to update you on a standardised process going forward which should greatly improve records-keeping and resolve all these issues. Henceforward, we will be handling these duties in a different way, so that they will be posted much more quickly: 1) We will be recording meetings at ICANN International meetings onsite. The recordings will then be immediately available, instead of waiting for the conference service to make them available (we have also had technical problems and delays with accessing recordings from the conference service, especially in respect of very long meetings such as are regularly a feature of international meetings). For teleconferences, these recordings will be posted, as has been the case for several months now, as soon as we have access to them. 2) The recordings will be sent directly off for transcription; generally the transcripts will come back in a matter of a few days - at which point they will be posted. 3) Very summarised minutes will be produced which give only: those attending / not attending, decisions taken, voting results, and agenda items tabled for discussion at a later meeting - because they are so summarised, you can expect these meetings to be available within minutes after the meeting concludes. To update you on the secretariat-activities left over from the Lisbon meetings: We are in the process of uploading recordings of the African and European regional meetings, and also the ALAC meetings, from the Lisbon ICANN meeting. These recordings will be transcribed as well, and having sourced an affordable transcription service, we are now in the process of getting the transcriptions done. Both transcripts and audio recordings will be posted as they become available. Please accept our apologies for the delays in these administrative tasks from Lisbon in particular. The volume of meetings - the European meetings alone ran to more than 24 hours of meeting time - has done us the favour of exposing the lack of scalability of our previous procedures, but this has also provided an opportunity to improve the accessibility of meeting results and information. LOCATIONS: All of the material related to meetings of the community will continue to be posted on the wikis. The URLs for all of the wikis are now visible from the bottom of the front page of each Wiki, and also at alac.icann.org - to make them all easier to find. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC websites
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 1, 2007

May 1, 2007

I can ensure that the minutes get posted there as well as on the ALAC site - however the alac.icann.org site was updated on the 11th April of this year to make clear that the recordings and minutes of meetings after those on the site could be found on the wiki - so these are all accessible.] On the documents that can certainly be done. Once I'm over my cold (which I came back from holiday and promptly began to suffer from :() I will generate up some instructions to provide more links and documents released/agreed. On 26/04/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > This is a longer subject, worthy of a more complete response, but here > > are a few main points: > > Given how this matter has been slipping over time, I just wanted to > point out that this is a real issue, right here right now... perhaps we > can get a decent timeshare of someone @ ICANN so that at least minutes > and official documents are posted promptly on alac.icann.org, until you > can switch to the new one? That'd help already. > > (Not to mention that we are about to undergo a review and we should at > least be able to publish the material to be reviewed...) > > Thanks, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 5

Fwd: Nom Com announcement
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 1, 2007

May 1, 2007

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> > Date: 30 April 2007 23:29:08 BDT > To: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Subject: Nom Com announcement > > Dear ALAC and ALS representatives, > > > > Please note that the ICANN Nominating Committee has today extended > the deadline of Statements of Interest until 18 May 2007 23:59 UTC. > See http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30apr07.htm and > below for more information: > > > > ICANN Nominating Committee Extends Deadline for Statements of > Interest to 18 May 2007 > > 30 April 2007 > > In order to provide additional time for candidates to submit > Statements of Interest, the 2007 ICANN Nominating Committee has > extended the deadline for Statements of Interest until 18 May 2007 > 23:59 UTC. Candidates should submit completed Statements of > Interest to nomcom2007(a)icann.org. > > The 2007 Nominating Committee began its work in December 2006 at > the ICANN Annual Meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and is actively > seeking qualified candidates for the following key positions within > ICANN: > > 3 seats on the ICANN Board of Directors > 2 members to Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO) > 3 members of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) > (from Africa, Latin America and Caribbean and Asia/Australia/ > Pacific regions) > 1 Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) member > The 2007 Nominating Committee has received 33 Statements of > Interest, 29 of the candidates are male, while 4 are female. 14 > candidates are from Europe, 6 are from Asia/Australia/Pacific, 5 > are from Latin America/Caribbean, 5 are from North America, and 3 > are from Africa. > > 25 candidates have declared a willingness to serve on the ICANN > Board, 12 have declared a willingness to serve on the GNSO Council, > 7 have declared a willingness to serve on the ccNSO Council, and 7 > have declared a willingness to serve on the ALAC. Please note that > some candidates have asked to be considered for more than one > position. > > Those individuals selected by the Nominating Committee will have a > unique opportunity to work with accomplished colleagues from around > the globe, address intriguing technical coordination problems and > related policy development challenges with diverse functional, > cultural, and geographic dimensions, and gain valuable insights and > experience from working across these boundaries of knowledge, > responsibility and perspective. > > Information about the 2007 Nominating Committee is available at > http://nomcom.icann.org. Information on the formal call for > Statements of Interest is available athttp://nomcom.icann.org/ > formal-call-2007.html. > > > > > > Patrick L. Jones > > Registry Liaison Manager & > > Staff support to the ICANN Nominating Committee > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > Tel: +1 310 301 3861 > > Fax: +1 310 823 8649 > > patrick.jones(a)icann.org > > > >

1 0

My comments on the ALAC Review Terms of Reference
by Wendy Seltzer April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

Sending these in to the TOR address in my individual capacity, as noted. In response to ICANN's call for comment on the Proposed Terms of Reference for Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee, I submit these comments in my individual capacity. While they are based on my experience as a member of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee, I do not speak for the Committee. It is critical to the secure and stable operation of ICANN's technical functions that it provide a channel for input from and maintain the support of the Internet-using public. ICANN's international legitimacy depends on its effective responsiveness to input from all stakeholders. Review of ALAC's structure and operation should thus be framed within that overall purpose. ALAC must be evaluated not only as to how effectively it has functioned within the structures it has been set, but how effectively even optimal performance of those structures could serve the representation needs of the at-large body of individual Internet users. By contrast, these TOR therefore seem too closely restricted to study of the efficacy of the existing ALAC structures. The reviewers should not conclude from the weakness of these structures that individual participation is unworkable, but rather should evaluate alternative structural mechanisms for representation of individual Internet users in ICANN's work and policy processes. The independent review provides a valuable opportunity for restoring the voice of the individual Internet user to ICANN. The rationale for the ALAC, as described in Article XI, Section 2, 4(a) of the Bylaws, is "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users." The ALAC is intended to provide voice for individual Internet users, replacing an initial structure in which at-large Internet users were to elect half of ICANN's Board. Key questions for the review, therefore, are whether individual Internet users have in fact achieved voice through the activities of ALAC, and whether that voice substitutes adequately for voting representation at the Board level and in Policy Development Processes. Specific additional questions and recommendations follow: PART I. Does the ALAC have a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure? Is the bylaws-stated purpose of ALAC too minimal to provide for public representation and participation within ICANN? Are the ALAC-enabled modes of participation insufficient for individual Internet users to contribute to ICANN? Do individual Internet users suffer from inadequate means by which to make their concerns heard and to receive timely responses to their concerns? Does the complexity of the ALAC structure turn away willing and valuable Internet user participation? Would greater participation, through voting at the GNSO and Board level, increase the incentives to individual Internet user participation and the quality of that participation? Does ICANN need ALAC or a replacement for it? Would individual Internet users be better served by reinstating direct elections? Do individual Internet users feel inadequately represented by ALAC? I recommend emphasizing Questions 2,3, and 8-12 in the existing Part I inquiry. PART II. Is there any change in structure or operations that could improve the ALAC's effectiveness? Question 17: Should any of these three structural levels be changed and, if so, how? I recommend specifically that the review consider flattening the layers of the ALAC to reduce both bureaucratic overhead and disincentives to participate through the dilution of opportunities. Does adherence to the ICANN regional configuration unnecessarily fragment and constrain input and participation? Are ALAC's ministerial tasks unduly left to volunteers when they should be delegable to staff at the direction of ALAC? Has ALAC's service to the individual Internet users been hindered by staffers' conflicting interests and responsibilities? Would individuals be better served if ALAC staff operated at the direction of the Committee? How could ALAC and individual Internet users more effectively obtain resources and staff support? Question 31 asks, To what extent have the recommendations of the Ombudsman been followed? Given the intrusive nature of the Ombudsman's inquiry, we should add To what extent have the Ombudsman's processes and recommendations been appropriate? To what extent have tools used and introduced by ALAC served as a model for other ICANN bodies? How often have the Board or GNSO followed ALAC recommendations? How often have they demurred? How often have ALAC contributions had a visible impact on ICANN policymaking? I look forward to assisting in answering these questions as part of the review. Wendy Seltzer Member, Interim At-Large Advisory Committee

1 0

Public Consultation on Terms of Reference for Independent Review of ALAC
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

Dear Community: As you know, the consultation on the independent review terms of reference is scheduled to end today, April 30th. However, since the translations of the Terms of Reference and the announcement of the consultation were not available at the start of the consultation period, I'm happy to inform you that the consultation will remain open through this week - through the 6th May. Those of you who wish to respond in a language other than english should feel free to do so! I hope you will pardon the delay between the english version being posted and the other 3 language versions, and will understand that we are doing our best to provide as much information of this kind in other languages as we can, as quickly as we can. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

1 0