- At-Large - lists.icann.org

ALS lists - why no public archive?
by Adam Peake April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking around the ALAC site information about ALS is pretty lacking. Particularly, why aren't the ALS mailing lists archives visible to non-members? If ALS exist to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN..." etc etc, how can they do this if the ALS lists are closed, if we can't see how policy is made, with what degree of support, who was involved. What are the ALS doing? Not suggesting ALS lists should be open to non ALS members, but if their recommendations, and "bottom up" policy represented by ALAC in ICANN is to be taken seriously, then there should be transparency. Thanks, Adam

8 16

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >Hello Evan >The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently >vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and >read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still >wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate >- Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer >on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to >exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when >Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. >There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore. Yup. ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking process, so it just changes the rules and process. When ALAC members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way ICANN treats all its critics. >The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a >reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. >The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same >reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents >etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as >well. There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan. If the North Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an opportunity to meet. --Wendy >Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was >suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were >made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable >suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, >it can be anywhere.. > >Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't >see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available >in every city in the world... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting > >Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > > Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the > > language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control" >- > > at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a >different > > understanding... > > >Hello Jaqueline, > >What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native >either ;-) ); > >The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that >meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would >support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not >attend. > >Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason >(that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and >location was that someone was making meeting space available at that >tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to >have a meeting at a particular time or place. > >The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more >important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). >The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the >people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of >crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, >when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a >belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which >is preferred by the participants themselves. > >If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support >the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes >travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence >in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel >budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is >incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to >support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- >definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy. > >- Evan > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 >10:59 PM > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 >10:59 PM > > > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org 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/

6 7

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Wendy Seltzer April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> I'm generally OK with the MOU, but share Luc's questions. > 1. Are we really going to get away with the MOU's parag. 6.4? We won't know if we don't try. > 2. Why do we need parag. 6.5? > I agree that 6.5 is unnecessary. My group is involved as an ALS to represent the POV of its membership, and cannot pretend to do more than that. While our goal is public progress, we do that through the advancement of a specific form of advocacy and don't claim to represent all viewpoints. ws: That's precisely the point of including it. Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement. --Wendy

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin?
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Well Evan I can speak to my region - The way it's working in LAC is that the reps keep up on all the issues that are happening, about to happen, etc. They send the info off to the ALSes and other interested ppl who may not yet be ALSes, who consult with their membership, and send back the info to the regional reps who take the opinions, the issues, the concerns back to the RALO and the ALAC, which then include in advice to the Board or whoever. I personally sent a lot of feedback from the Caribbean on .xxx before the Board discussion on it (it was early in the Lisbon meeting, not the public meeting on the Friday) - there wasn't a consensus, so several different positions with supporting arguments were forwarded. Some of them seemed to have been taken on board given the transcripts of the Board meeting. Jacob took up the feedback on the President's Strategy Committee - we got a lot of discussion on that as well. We are currently discussing Registerfly and registrar issues, the IGF and ICANN relationship, gTLDs and the External Review ToR and ALAC structure for participation. Several members have expressed interest in participating in the WhoIS WG. So policy discussion is going on in some regions... it's not just about structure. Actually this discussion on structure and what was and so on has never raised its head in the LAC. There was a lot of discussion about structure in the formation stages, for about 2 months until the RALO was formed. Since then, hardly any. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:33 PM Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin? > The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. > As one of the newcomers, I can say one thing for certain; it's all so very headache-inducing. On one hand: I'm tired of repeated commentaries on the evil ICANN staff conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone outside of three people named George. On the other hand: ICANN itself, through a combination of action and inaction, has given plenty of credibilty to the accusations. And the end result is a lot of zero. IMO this isn't about being good spirited, it's about being patient in the hope that sooner or later there'll actually be a policy to be debated. The vast majority of the discussion on these lists so far has been about meetings to determine _structure_. Even these meetings don't appear to have on their plate anything actually policy-related. When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread public interest. MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without the historical baggage? > Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a > budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. > If that's the case, what the heck are you doing here? What am I doing here? Don't we have better things to do than bang heads into brick walls? If I want to be told what I don't have, I only need to ask my wife. I have two pleas to the folks involved in this process: ICANN staff: Live up to the promises Jacob made to us last year, that we would be genuinely engaged and consulted on ICANN issues. Frankly I couldn't care less about the structure -- geographic, linguistic, or based on tarot cards -- but come up with something that prioritizes efficient knowledge transfer. The best way to address the complaints is with utter clarity and openness; let people know exactly what this process offers and what it doesn't. All the structure, recognition, and airline pretzels are pointless if the POV of ALSs is not meaningfully expressed -- and addressed -- on ALL relevant issues. If this isn't possible or desired then please stop wasting my time. And don't assume silence means consent, sometimes it just means the situation is too confused for an informed response. Angry old-timers: If you're indeed correct about ICANN being opaque and impervious to comment, stop encouraging that behaviour by spending so much time on complaining and wheel-spinning -- because in the meantime real policy discussion CAN'T take place, and the targets of your ire aren't listening. Clarity in the objections is also sorely lacking -- concentrate on the gaps between what exists and what was formally committed. Help us know factually what ICANN won't tell us directly while working within the procss that exists, and let us make our own minds up rather than being indignant on our behalf. If the current process is pointless, let's change it with concrete alternatives whose development doesn't get mixed in with ICANN policy debate. Otherwise, our mandate is better served by getting out and going public. Obviously there are many with deep investments -- of time, effort and emotions -- in this process. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone individually, but I make no apologies for my exhaustion from a mix of bureaucratic bafflegab and petty scoldings. - Evan _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

1 0

Recommendations re: criteria for NomCom to consider
by Wendy Seltzer April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Bruce Tonkin has posted a useful document to the GNSO list with criteria the GNSO would like to see from NomCom nominees. <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03352.html> Particularly useful is the listing of areas of expertise the Council feels would be helpful. (reproduced below) I'd recommend we offer similar guidance with respect to both ALAC and Board selections. I'd particularly like to see expertise in competition law and economics, privacy, and non-profit governance everywhere in ICANN. For ALAC as well as for Council, I think expertise in statistical methods, online consensus building tech, and project management would be helpful. --Wendy <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03352.html> Criteria * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder group to reach consensus * basic of knowledge of DNS systems and industry structure - registries, registrars * individual expertise that is not otherwise available on the Council Possible expertise of interest to the GNSO: - setting up of dispute and objection processes - enforcement - application software development - e.g multi-lingual support - online consensus building technologies - wiki's etc - competition law and economists capable of market analysis - statistics and survey analysis - project management and document control processes -- 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/

2 1

Pictures from ICANN Lisbon
by Patrick Vande Walle April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

For all those interested, I hae uploaded some pictures of the ICANN meeting, including the EURALO signing ceremony on my blog: Pour les ceux que cela intéresse, j'ai mis en ligne les photos prises pendant la réunion de l'ICANN et particulièrement celles de la cérémonie de signature des RALO http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/zen/index.php?album=icann-lisbon Bon retour à tous, Safe travels, Patrick Vande Walle

2 1

Fwd: non-geographic ralo?
by Wendy Seltzer April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Forwarding for Jean: -------- Original Message -------- >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:08:17 -0400 >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> > >Hi- someone also brought up the possibility of a 6th RALO that >should be created for Non-geographic identities (NO-RALO). This >would encompass ALS's with membership that ignores borders; >organizations with members from many regions. Maybe this could be >combined with the one for individuals. ALAC's charter would have to >be changed to create a 6th entity. But the Board has agreed with >by-laws changed for ALAC before. > > >At 2:28 PM +0300 4/11/07, alice recently said: >>Yes I do recall having this discussion and think it is worthwhile >>exploring other ways to engage individual users. Willing to be part >>of a working group for this. >>best >>alice >> >> >> >>Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>>Hi Alice >>>As we discussed briefly during the Lisboa meeting, several of the RALOs have >>>determined that individual users do not participate on the same footing as >>>the organized ALSes. We said then that the ALAC needed to look into possible >>>alternate methods to allow individual users to participate - one idea was a >>>6th RALO for individuals... Should we start a working group to >>>brainstorm ideas for better >>>participation? If so - who'd be interested in looking at those options - >>>Wendy, Alice? >>>Jacqueline >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM >>>To: Wendy Seltzer >>>Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive? >>> >>>Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual >>>Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either >>>unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their >>>engagement. >>> >>>alice >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>> >>>>At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>>I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works. >>>>> >>>>>ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support >>>>>"individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by >>>>>distributing to individual constituents/members information on >>>>>relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based >>>>>mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities >>>>>and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving >>>>>individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, >>>>>discussions and decisions." >>>>>and to be organised around individual participation, etc. >>>>><http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm> >>>>> >>>>>Does the current ALAC structure achieve this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>NO. >>>> >>>>--Wendy >>>>(more later) >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >>>>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/ >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 -- 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/

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: Terms of Reference
by Wendy Seltzer April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Forwarding for Jean, whose posts aren't getting through: >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:10:35 -0400 >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> > >I sent this about a week ago and never saw it appear on the list, so >I am sending it again. (My mail is supposed to show me my own posts, >so I don't know what happened. Apologies if you have already seen >this. ) >The ALAC's performance will be judged on the terms of reference >used. This is our chance to help develop them. It might be helpful >to look at the terms of reference that were used for the GNSO review >last year. This will give you an idea of what to develop and what >the end product should look like. >Perhaps a wiki page could be created for this. >The terms of reference are in Annex H, the second listed PDF at the >url below, although they are the basis of the report and are >referred to many times in it. Pointers to the pdfs are here. Well >worth reading the report. > >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm > >Jean Armour Polly >Ex-ALAC, NA -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org 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/

1 0

NomCom: seeking candidates for ICANN leadership positions
by Adam Peake April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Hi, ICANN's NomCom is recruiting candidates, we are selecting: * 3 seats on the ICANN Board of Directors. * 3 members of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), from Africa, Latin America and Caribbean and Asia/Australia/Pacific regions. * 2 members to Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO). * 1 Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) member. NomCom website <http://nomcom.icann.org> has information about the process and more information about the positions. You can nominate yourself. You can suggest someone you think would be a good candidate (details of how to do that here <http://nomcom.icann.org/formal-call-2007.html#H>). Or just send me the names of anyone you think would be a good candidate for any of the positions. Please pass on this information to your ALS or any other groups and individuals you think may be interested. I would be happy to help anyone with questions, please forward my email address <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>. Deadline for applications in 1 May 2007. I should have asked this list long ago for advice, ALAC --the RALOs and ALS-- is the strongest link to the ICANN user community and potential source of candidates. Apologies. Many thanks, Adam (2007 NomCom Associate Chair)

1 0

Revising ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

At today's conference call of ALAC, we agreed to separate Domain Tasting and Monetization issues more clearly. So we will drop the monetization part from the current resolution draft and focus on Domain Tasting. In the mean time, we agreed to continue the "study" of Domain monetization. As soon as I finish the editing, I will post the new draft here. I thank you for all the helpful comments and suggestions. izumi

1 0