- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: (INTA list) ICANN Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group Questionnaire on Prior Mechanisms (Sunrise, IP Claims, etc.)
by Wendy Seltzer April 29, 2007

April 29, 2007

INTA members filling this out, individuals should be too. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mette Bender-Pedersen <MBender-Pedersen(a)inta.org> Date: Apr 26, 2007 9:48 PM Subject: (INTA list) ICANN Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group Questionnaire on Prior Mechanisms (Sunrise, IP Claims, etc.) To: tmtopics(a)lists.inta.org Dear posters, The ICANN PRO WG has completed its questionnaire. Please take the time to complete it before the May 4 deadline. https://www.bigpulse.com/692i Thank you, Mette Bender -- Wendy Seltzer http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Expression of thanks to comments from ALAC members on registry failover
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 27, 2007

April 27, 2007

I will (and have with this response) but you - and anyone with an icann.org address - should have no problems posting to the list... On 26/04/07, Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Nick, > > I cannot post to the ALAC list, but can you pass along my thanks to ALAC for > the useful comments that have been posted on the list related to the > registry failover project. The feedback will be incorporated in our work. > > Regards, > > > > Patrick > > > > Patrick L. Jones > > Registry Liaison Manager > > 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 > > -- -- 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

Re: [At-Large] ALAC websites
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

This is a longer subject, worthy of a more complete response, but here are a few main points: * Each regional website allows the entire community in that region to update the content. The Staff do most of the maintenance of the pages related to meetings, and we do upload documents of course. * There are some main pages of some sites which have not been updated much it is true - alac.icann.org has a lot of out-of-date content on the front page, though various sections are up-to-date. * I spent a good deal of time with Kieren and Marc (webmaster) at Lisbon, and we do have a plan for a very considerable upgrade / replacement of alac.icann.org with a new microsite, at-large.icann.org - containing a new look, replacement for out-of-date text, the facility to have forums which post bidirectionally from regional discussion email lists, and allow blogs too - once the plan is firmed up I will provide more detail of course and we have set a target of San Juan to have the first, preview version, available for comments by the community. * As you may know, I am including in our budget a provision for a full-time member of staff to act as Secretariat to the regions. This new person will, among other things, be charged with helping make the regional websites much more topical and (for example) ensuring that they contain more information about the community - each ALS, their activities, etc. * We do need a lot more information about ICANN and its processes in a user-friendly format. Kieren and I are planning to make a list of pages from www.icann.org which need to be re-presented in this way, and find a couple of tech / ICANN-savvy journalists who can write them up in a news-style format, allowing a reader to understand the structures and processes much more readily. On 25/04/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > All, > > I'm in the middle of a discussion with the Board in which I'm trying to > raise the priority of the "post-Registerfly" theme in respect to other > things that others see as more important. So I wanted to point (again) > the Board at our resolution on the matter, and... > > ...I realized that we have two websites, the ICANN-managed one and the > ALAC-managed one, both of which do not seem to have been updated since > December at least for what pertains to our releases, so there is no way > that I can point anyone to our resolution, except by pointing to the > wiki (which is not where you'd expect to find a final release, and where > it's hard to find things anyway). > > All in all, while I am aware of the issues about hiring a content > manager, we should get this done asap - and/or we should get a > reasonable timeshare of ICANN's webmaster so that at least the official > documents approved by the ALAC get published promptly on alac.icann.org. > > Ciao, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 1

ICANN Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference for Independent Review of the ALAC
by Robert Guerra April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

Please note that the deadline to send comments is - April 30th - THREE DAYS FROM NOW. I would encourage all those who have expressed a comment on the NA RALO process and/or comments on ALAC in general to submit comments . regards Robert Guerra -- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm ICANN Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference for Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) 30 March 2007 Português - http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07- pt.htm Español - Français - http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07- fr.htm ICANN is seeking public comments on proposed Terms of Reference, which detail questions that would guide the independent review of ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee. The public comment period will last from 30 March 2007 to 29 April 2007. Send comments to: <alac- review-tor(a)icann.org>. View comments at: <http://forum.icann.org/ lists/alac-review-tor/>. ICANN's Board Governance Committee (BGC) approved a proposed plan for the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) review, and ICANN's Board agreed and directed staff to post proposed Terms of Reference for public comments. Proposed Terms of Reference Review of the ALAC will be conducted in an objective way by an entity or entities independent of it, under guidance from the Board on the Review's Terms of Reference. The results of the Review shall be posted for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board not later than its second scheduled meeting after being posted for 30 days. ICANN's bylaws require that Supporting Organisations, Councils and Advisory Committees be independently reviewed. As provided in the Bylaws, consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the ALAC by a two- thirds vote of all members. Recognizing that the ALAC and the global At-Large infrastructure that includes "Regional At-Large Organizations" and groups certified as "At-Large Structures" are interconnected, the Review will address all of these elements of At-Large involvement in ICANN. There are several important questions that the Review should address, which are listed below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, particularly as the initial results of the Review may suggest related questions that should also be answered. A. Scope of Review In accordance with Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of ICANN bylaws, the review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is designed to determine: * Whether the organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and * If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. Both of these questions should be answered as comprehensively as possible, taking into account the rationale for the ALAC and its functioning so far. Key questions that the Review should consider are indicated below. As noted above, this list is not intended to be exhaustive, particularly as the initial results of the Review may suggest related questions that should also be answered. It will be important to consider the questions from 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 of) the ICANN community. B. Rationale for the ALAC 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." PART I. Does the ALAC have a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure? 1. What purpose does the ALAC serve? 2. Why should an ALS seek certification and work to create a RALO? 3. Why should an individual Internet user seek to participate in the ICANN process through the ALAC? 4. To what extent has the ALAC provided advice on the activities of ICANN insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users? 5. Are these interests different than the interests represented by other parts of the ICANN structure? 6. How does the ALAC determine what advice to provide on particular ICANN activities? 7. Are individual Internet users appropriately represented by an advisory committee to the Board, and the ALAC specifically? 8. What should be the purpose of the ALAC going forward? 9. What other ways might exist to provide advice on ICANN activities from the perspective of individual Internet users? 10. Is it appropriate, as recommended by the LSE GNSO Review, to combine the At-Large community and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency in one GNSO constituency? 11. What are the current benefits, drawbacks and costs of the ALAC and the At-Large structure? 12. What are the benefits, drawbacks and costs of these other options? PART II. Is there any change in structure or operations that could improve the ALAC's effectiveness? Structure 13. Are the criteria for certifying ALSs and creating RALOs sufficient? 14. How many ALSs have been certified, and how does this level compare to expectations and goals? Are there identifiable trends among entities that have been certified (e.g., ISOC chapters)? Are there identifiable trends among entities that have not been certified? 15. Why are all RALOs not yet established? Are those that have been established structured and supported in a way that will enable them to fulfill the responsibilities described in the bylaws? 16. To what extent do the ALAC's three different levels - ALSs, RALOs and the ALAC itself - provide advice on ICANN activities? Does this advice ever conflict? 17. Should any of these three structural levels be changed and, if so, how? 18. Given that the ALAC has more voting representatives on the Nominating Committee than any other ICANN structure (five out of 17 - almost 30%), what has been the ALAC's impact on the selection of persons for ICANN leadership positions? 19. To what extent have the ALAC's Liaisons to the Board, the GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council provided advice on ICANN policy and activities? Do non-voting liaison seats on the Board and Councils, and non-voting seats on policy Task Forces, provide sufficient input and representation for the At-Large community? 20. How do the At-Large Liaisons ensure that their advice to the Board and Councils reflect ALAC and At-Large community views? To what extent are the Liaisons conduits for information to and from the At- Large community and the Councils on which they served? Composition 21. Do the members of the Interim ALAC, and those selected (or elected) already by RALOs, indeed reflect the interests of individual Internet users? 22. What is the optimal size of the ALAC to be effective? 23. Are members of the ALAC chosen in a transparent way? 24. Have members of the ALAC had the skills needed to conduct their work effectively? 25. What should be the role of the Chair of the ALAC, and how should that person be selected? 26. Should the ALAC have other officers? Internal Procedures 27. Are the ALAC's procedures sufficient to guide all aspects of its work? 28. To what extent are the ALAC's decisions and actions consistent with its procedures? 29. How are decisions made regarding certification of ALSs and RALOs? 30. Are certification decisions subject to review and, if so, how? 31. To what extent have the recommendations of the Ombudsman been followed? 32. How can the ALAC's procedures, decisions and actions be made more transparent? 33. How have any actual or potential conflicts of interest between the ALAC members and candidates for ALS status been resolved? 34. Are safeguards in place to identify and address potential or actual conflicts of interest? 35. What kind of support has ICANN provided to the ALAC, and is this level appropriate? 36. Do members of the ALAC community believe they have the information needed to make informed decisions, in a language they can understand? 37. How are decisions made regarding ALAC positions, recommendations, resolutions, and other input provided to the Board, the GNSO and other ICANN entities? 38. How does the ALAC ensure the involvement of ALSs and RALOs in making decisions regarding policy advice, and that their advice reflects the views of the At-Large community? Outreach 39. What is the aim of At-Large outreach? 40. How effective has outreach been in recruiting ALSs and establishing RALOs? 41. How effective have online tools, include websites, wikis, blogs, and email forums been in outreach to the At-Large community? 42. Has outreach at ICANN meetings and Internet-related events had a discernable impact on the informed participation of the At-Large community? Overall 43. What are the annual costs of the ALAC process? 44. Has the ALAC had the resources necessary to accomplish its tasks? 45. What other general or specific measures could enhance its effectiveness? 46. What, if any, are the cost implications of such measures?

1 0

ALAC Review Terms of Reference Multilingual / TOR de la revisión de ALAC multilingüe / revue d'ALAC multilingue
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

Dear Community: The translated versions of the Draft Terms of Reference for the ALAC review are now available in Brazilian Portuguese and French. The spanish version will be available shortly. If you have not yet put your comments in please do so soon. ----FRANCAIS ---- La chère Communauté : Les versions traduites du mandat d'ébauche pour la revue d'ALAC sont maintenant disponibles dans portugais brésiliens et français. La version espagnole sera disponible bientôt. Si vous n'avez pas encore mis vos commentaires satisfont dedans font ainsi. --- PORTUGUES ---- Cara comunidade: As versões traduzidas dos termos do esboço de referência para a revisão de ALAC estão agora disponíveis em Portuguese e francês. A versão espanhola estará disponível logo. Se você não puser ainda seus comentários satisfazem dentro fazem assim. ---- ESPANOL --- Estimada comunidad: Las versiones traducidas de los términos del bosquejo de la referencia para la revisión de ALAC están disponibles ahora en portugués brasileños y francés. La versión española estará disponible pronto. Si todavía no has puesto tus comentarios adentro satisfacen hacen tan. French: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07-fr.htm Brazilian Portuguese: http://www.icann.org/announcements/ announcement-2-30mar07-pt.htm English: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm --- 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

ICANN’s Registry Failover project - please comment
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

Dear All ICANN’s Registry Failover project has recently provided an update to the ICANN Board and also gave a presentation to the ccNSO in Lisbon. The GAC Communique released in Lisbon also contains language on registry failover. In an effort to reach out directly with ALAC and users, they have posted on the ICANN blog some of the types of questions that the community, users and public may want answered in the event of a registry failure. See HYPERLINK "http://blog.icann.org/?p=105"http://blog.icann.org/?p=105. Please comment. Thanks, Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM

8 10

ALAC websites
by Vittorio Bertola April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

All, I'm in the middle of a discussion with the Board in which I'm trying to raise the priority of the "post-Registerfly" theme in respect to other things that others see as more important. So I wanted to point (again) the Board at our resolution on the matter, and... ...I realized that we have two websites, the ICANN-managed one and the ALAC-managed one, both of which do not seem to have been updated since December at least for what pertains to our releases, so there is no way that I can point anyone to our resolution, except by pointing to the wiki (which is not where you'd expect to find a final release, and where it's hard to find things anyway). All in all, while I am aware of the issues about hiring a content manager, we should get this done asap - and/or we should get a reasonable timeshare of ICANN's webmaster so that at least the official documents approved by the ALAC get published promptly on alac.icann.org. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

3 2

Rules of procedure, draft 2
by Vittorio Bertola April 18, 2007

April 18, 2007

All, attached is the revised draft for rules of procedure, incorporating what was agreed on today's call (and also some of Izumi's suggestions, which seemed non-controversial to me - mostly clarifications). I have also incorporated the minimum participation requirements taken verbatim from the Self Review, even if I had to adapt them a bit - in particularly, it said that members are expected to participate in all ALS accreditation vote, but it seemed odd to me to send someone away for missing just one vote. So I broke down the list into "qualitative" and "quantitative" requirements, specified that only the quantitative ones count in practice, and lowered the threshold to 3/4 of ALS votes. I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus Here they are: ==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft: ----- g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC; They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, and, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, always putting the collective views of the Committee in front of their own.] ----- Suggestions welcome. ==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals: 1. Initial proposal 10 votes in favour. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%). 2. Wendy's proposal Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour. 3. Izumi's proposal 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. 4. A possible compromise? 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the committee. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly shared, and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an interesting compromise. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

12 36

Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices
by Wendy Seltzer April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

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, with or without fee? 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/

9 10

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by John L April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

> It would be good to map out the gaps in accountability that are currently > present... It would be a whole lot quicker to do the opposite, to attempt to identify the accountablity that currently exists. Relative to at large, it's hard to think of any. As an interim ALAC member, I tried to represent the positions that I thought would be relevant to the Internet users who aren't in any of ICANN's organized consituencies, but I was just guessing. The ALS/RALO scheme exists, but it only provides a trickle of accountability to the ALSes, and none to individual Internet users. One of the deep flaws I realized this setup has is that most if not all of the ALSes really belong in the NCUC, and as Danny Younger has often reminded us, there's no route for all of the "none of the above" users. Some RALOs have provision for unaffiliated users, but they tend to be treated as a sort-of-ALS which still marginalizes them. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

4 5