- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Monetisation issue - google goes to pay-per-action
by jam＠jacquelinemorris.com April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

HI Just saw this link - http://news.com.com/2061-10812_3-6168873.html -- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com

1 0

COMMENTS NEEDED: Terms of Reference for ALAC Review
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 1, 2007

April 1, 2007

Dear All: More big news for At-Large: http://www.icann.org/announcements/ announcement-1-30mar07.htm The Independent Review Terms of Reference are very important - I hope all of you will comment on them so that your views can be taken into account when the final terms of reference are drafted. -- 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

3 2

Transcript of the ICANN Board Ratifying RALO MoUs
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 31, 2007

March 31, 2007

Dear Colleagues: I thought I would provide you the text of the transcript from the public Board meeting today that relates to the MoUs for the RALOs from Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific, and Europe. The whole transcript is available at: http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript- board-30mar07.htm ---- VINT: Next item on the agenda has to do with the Regional At-Large Organization which has shown a substantial dynamic in the last 12 months, rapid growth of ALSs and RALOs. One of our board members has been long associated with the at-large community and I would like to ask Roberto to introduce this motion. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it is true that I have been associated with the at-large community, and I would like to make a comment before I read the motion, if I'm allowed. I think some of you remember the statement of Pedro related to the football, that the GAC football team has waited for him not to play once to win the tournament. And I feel ALAC community has done this to me as well. They have waited until I moved out, and then -- you know, and then they went ahead. But since I still feel part of this at-large community, although I don't have mandate from the at-large community, I am really very happy to see this happening and I'm glad that I've been given the honor of presenting this motion. So I will go on and read the motion. With whereas -- I suppose I can speed up a little bit because you have the text, right? Whereas, the ICANN bylaws, article XI, section 2, part 4 provide a process that allows individual Internet users to participate meaningfully in the work of ICANN, as the community known as "at- large," and; Whereas, groups representing individual Internet users throughout the world have made outstanding progress in their work together, resulting in three regions concluding their negotiations on creating memoranda of understanding with ICANN to create their Regional At-Large Organizations, RALOs, and; Whereas, the three regions are the Asia/Australia/Pacific, the African and the European regions, an achievement which represents a considerable milestone in the development of the multistakeholder process which is so fundamental to the work of ICANN, and; Whereas, the ICANN board wishes to recognize and applaud the at-large community worldwide and especially in the African, Asia/Australia/ Pacific and European regions for the achievement of this milestone in their development, and; Whereas the board is pleased to highlight the fact that with the creation of these three RALOs, the At-Large Advisory Committee is now composed of eight elected members and five Nominating Committee members with only two remaining board-appointed members, and; Whereas, the general counsel's office have reviewed the draft MOUs and determined they meet the requirements in the ICANN bylaws establish for the formation of a RALO and advised that a 21-day public comment period should be observed, and; Whereas, the African and European user groups have met as a part of the ICANN Lisbon meeting and elected their representatives to the At- Large Advisory Committee as a part of their work, allowing for the diverse communities engaged in ICANN to be present to recognize this achievement, and; Whereas, the Asia/Australia/Pacific region are in the process of formally providing written confirmation of their consent to be bound by the terms of their MOU with ICANN and shall formally sign the MOU in a public ceremony at the October 2007 ICANN international meeting to be held in the Asia/Australia/Pacific region, and; Whereas, the parties to the African and European MOUs composed of ICANN and representatives of the at-large structures in the African and European regions, signed it at a public ceremony on Thursday 29th March, 2007 at the Lisbon ICANN meeting, the execution of the agreement on ICANN's part contingent upon final approval by the ICANN board following completion of the public comment period, and; Whereas, the public comment periods for the African and Asia/ Australia/Pacific concluded on the 28th March, 2007 and the public comment period on the Latin America and the Caribbean region concluded that on 4th January, 2007. Resolved, the board ratifies the memorandum of understanding with the European at-large structures on the same basis under which it was signed, and; Resolved, the board gives its final approval to the memorandum of understanding between the at-large Latin America and Caribbean region and ICANN and, resolved the board gives its final approval to the memorandum of understanding between the at-large African region and ICANN, and; Resolved, the board gives its final approval to the memorandum of understanding between the at-large Asia/Australia/Pacific region and ICANN. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Roberto. Is there a second for this motion? I see a second from Vanda. I'm sure that if Vittorio were a voting board member, he would be eager to second this as well. Is there any further discussion of the motion? I'll ask for a vote -- oh, I'm sorry. Njeri. >>NJERI RIONGE: I just want to, you know, sort of congratulate all those people who are involved in this process, because we now have an African RALO which is actually going to help to bring people together and I expect to and look forward to seeing more business constituency participation within the African community. >>VINT CERF: Alex, I saw your hand up and Peter also. >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Vint, I think that if one looks at the organizations which were actually participating in the signing or in the announcements yesterday -- or in the announcements, because Asia-Pacific will still be signed in a few months, it's remarkable and has to go down on the record the diversity of types of organizations that are coming together. The principles and the social functions of these organizations are very different, yet they are coming together because they find it important to represent the general user of the Internet in matters that are general to ICANN. Mostly concerned of course we know related to domain names but the stability of the Internet, first of all, and also IP addresses and all other aspects of ICANN's work are attracting this interest. I would further underline that many of the organizations coming together in the at-large structures are chapters of the Internet Society. This underlines, first, that there's an ongoing, growing level of cooperation and shared interest with the society and the field which ICANN covers. The goodwill that's coming together here is extremely important at all levels, from the individuals to the chapters to the general working of our groups, and it's continuing to validate so now we will also be able to test the concept on which we have built the at-large representation which is this Web of trust. There's an enormous number of similarities between the way the at- large chapters are recognized and come together and, for example, the ways in which ISOC chapters are created and recognized. It's very much based on someone knowing someone having concrete positive or negative provable references of the good work being done by some of these organizations and people, and this Web of trust concept is the one that gives me, as it has proven -- it gives me much encouragement to assist in continuing this specific form of the at-large effort. It has taken time. We can all complain that it has taken much time to finally get these organizations built up and signing the MOUs, but that's also coming from the concept itself and the ones it has got up some speed, as it is now, it's sure that we can responsibly make sure that we address the concerns of these communities that we -- as ICANN, as a board, and from staff go ask not only for them to express themselves but go ask and consul! t explicitly on specific things, craft a specific program of work that's geared to our better and better planning which includes now the planning with the GAC, and which validates further -- and apologies for the reiteration here -- the work that we've been doing in the joint working group, the work that's being done in the ALAC and so forth. It's really this WSIS [non-English word] ALAC character of ICANN that is also extremely important and that should be underlined. The resolutions that we've taken today, which are some of the most momentous ones in the -- in the history of ICANN are very well-grounded in this multistakeholder approach. Every part of the community has expressed itself repeatedly in a structured way, in it a way that has made sure that their voice gets incorporated into the final resolutions, and the growth of this ALAC part is very well connected to that aspect. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Alex. Any other comments? I see Peter and then Francisco. Peter? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I just wanted to add my congratulations to all of those who have worked so hard over the last few years to bring that to fruition, and it was a pleasure to be on stage with a glass of champagne yesterday at the time of the signing. I think a most appropriate ceremony. Well done. >>VINT CERF: Francisco. >>FRANCISCO DA SILVA: So thank you very much. I see that from Sao Paulo to Lisbon, good progress was achieved in this area, and I am very content and glad with it. The only thing that I'd note, that we have three speaking -- Portuguese speaking in this board and we have no organization in this from any Portuguese speaking country in any region, so I -- this is only to stimulate those of the Internet community that are Portuguese speaking to adhere to this movement that is in the beginning and I have already yesterday spoken with someone from Africa, from Tanzania, that they are taking -- paying attention to this, and if we can help, I think I can speak on behalf -- I have not spoken with my fellow Portuguese speaking, Vanda and Demi, but I think we are open to helping and supporting what is needed. Thank you. And anyhow, congratulations and I hope this is only a first step to a more rich -- a richer environment concerning the at-large. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Francisco. I see one more comment from Vittorio. Yes. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Very briefly, I just wanted to thank all the board members for the support. Yes, it was a long and painful process. It started over four years ago. It took a lot of time and effort by not so many but not so few people, actually, and so I'm really glad we are at this point. There's still a lot of open issues and things to be done and -- but perhaps the thing I'd like to point out is that when we started this, it was -- well, two years before the WSIS, I'd say, and we looked a bit insane of this idea with continuing to involve final users in so-called civil society, if you want, in ICANN, but time has proven that perhaps the need that we were feeling at that point in time was actually true, and in the end, I think it's been a great value for ICANN to have this part of its structure in place during the last years. So I think we -- we wanted to be one of the more forward-looking constituencies of ICANN and I think we can continue to provide that value ! as well. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much. Are there any other comments before we go to a vote? If you vote in favor of the resolution, we will be approving or ratifying a collection of MOUs that are integrating the at-large structures into our organization. So let me call for a vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. I count one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve -- I see Susan -- thirteen, fourteen, fifteen. Thank you very much. Fifteen to zero, Mr. Secretary. -- 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

4 4

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] COMMENTS NEEDED: Terms of Reference for ALAC Review
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

Hopefully you will make this observation to the address for comments on the TOR. On 30/03/07, Michael Maranda <mmaranda(a)afcn.org> wrote: > With regard to the terms, one section is "Outreach"... how can outreach be > evaluated independent of the context of resources provided for such > outreach? Whose outreach are we talking about? What resources have been > provided for "outreach"? > > > > > On 3/30/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > > > > Dear All: > > > > > > More big news for > At-Large: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-1-30mar07.htm > > > > > > The Independent Review Terms of Reference are very important - I hope all > of you will comment on them so that your views can be taken into account > when the final terms of reference are drafted. > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter > Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance > Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition > President, Association For Community Networking > > Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: > http://www.digitalaccessalliance.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

the regional lists ending in -Announce
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

Dear All: The original idea of having regional -Announce lists was for announcing things, but in practice, nothing gets announced in these lists; everything goes in the other two. May I propose that we get rid of these? We can always bring them back later, or if any one region wants to keep them, of course we can do that. -- 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 4

ICM update
by Mr. Robert Guerra March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

in regards to ICM registry proposal to create triple X 8 to reject, 5 to accept, 1 abstention - Proposal to create XXX rejected regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

2 1

Re: [At-Large] ICM update
by Wendy Seltzer March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

Let the lawsuits begin... I never liked .xxx as a substantive matter, but ICANN should never have been evaluating substance. Procedurally, ICM complied. --Wendy -- sent from the TreoPod -- Wendy Seltzer wendy(a)seltzer.com Brooklyn Law & Berkman Center -----Original Message----- From: "Mr. Robert Guerra" <lists(a)privaterra.info> Subj: [At-Large] ICM update Date: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:21 am Size: 488 bytes To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> in regards to ICM registry proposal to create triple X 8 to reject, 5 to accept, 1 abstention - Proposal to create XXX rejected regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 _______________________________________________ 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 --- message truncated ---

1 0

FY 2007 At-Large Budget
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 30, 2007

March 30, 2007

Dear At-Large Colleagues: I have provided by attachment a summarisation of the budget for the At-Large community for the remainder of the ICANN Fiscal Year ending in June. You will note that the existing line items do not add up to the total. This is because some information - particularly related to costs of employment or the actual contractual amounts agreed to be paid to contractors - are of course kept private as is standard practice in many parts of the world (if not all of them) in respect of this type of information. Budgeting for the upcoming FY is about to start and the At-Large community will of course have plenty of opportunities for input as that is built. -- 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] {Disarmed} Re: Public Forum presentation - draft
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

We also have Maria Farrell scheduled to join the meeting today and she has been prepped that there are many questions about the procedure, and I've also asked if she can comment on what the expected content of the request would be, and of course answer questions or discuss other subjects related to the GNSO as you desire On 29/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > > > 2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)consensus.pro>: > > > > My point was that Izumi had seemed to suggest that 1(c) could be skipped > > and an issues report requested from the staff. This is not the way it works; > > the issues report is requested from the GNSO, who then direct staff to > > create one. > > > from the staff, or from an advisory commmtee? I did not suggest to skip > 1 c at all. I said I read it. > > I am fine to move this to public list and also discuss in our meeting. > > izumi > > > Honestly, this is obviously becoming a very long and probably confusing > > thread - quite possibly even for some of us contributing to it - may I > > suggest that we actually just discuss this at the meeting later this > > afternoon? In front of all the ALSes and the whole committee? And the result > > can then be posted. > > > > On 29/03/07, Vittorio Bertola < vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > > > > > > I am moving this to the public list, because it is very important. > > > > > > We can discuss on words, but your interpretation of the text of the > > > PDP > > > that would require the GNSO Council to approve a request for an Issue > > > Report by an Advisory Committee is not what was agreed in year 2002. > > > It > > > was explicitly said that we were advisory, but we'd have the > > > unilateral > > > right (of course to be used with care) to put things on the GNSO > > > agenda. > > > I have even checked this with a GNSO guru during the break, who said > > > that there's no way that it can be differently from this - we just > > > need > > > to phrase the request correctly. > > > > > > If the ICANN staff stays with that interpretation, and if it is > > > confirmed by the GNSO, I would like to raise the issue with the other > > > ACs and with the Board to understand whether this is actually the > > > intent > > > of ICANN at the political level. > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > > > Your interpretation does not square with the ICANN GC. Note the word > > > > 'request' in 1(c). Further, you do not request ICANN Staff for an > > > issues > > > > report; you send a request to the GNSO as per 1(c). > > > > > > > > On 29/03/07, *Izumi AIZU* <iza(a)anr.org <mailto: iza(a)anr.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, I looked at 1 c. already, as follows, > > > > > > > > 1 c. /Advisory Committee Initiation./ An Advisory Committee may > > > > raise an issue for policy development by action of such > > > committee to > > > > commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO > > > Council > > > > > > > > The "transmission of that request" implies to the commence of > > > PDP, > > > > but NOT issue report IMHO. So, this does not prevent us from > > > > requesting ICANN Staff for Issue Report. Otherwise, there is > > > little > > > > room for any advisory committee - I cannot imagine GAC accepts > > > this > > > > and ask GNSO council to reuqest Issue report or RSSAC or SSAC > > > does... > > > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > 2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart < nashton(a)consensus.pro > > > > <mailto: nashton(a)consensus.pro>>: > > > > > > > > Look at 1(c). Then look at 2.... > > > > > > > > On 29/03/07, *Vittorio Bertola* < vb(a)bertola.eu > > > > <mailto: vb(a)bertola.eu>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > > >> Note one error below of process. Quite important not to > > > > misstate the process... > > > >> > > > >> >However, there is a need for more concrete information to > > > > prove these > > > >> >problems actually exist and are affecting the ordinary > > > > users and their > > > >> >experience in using the Internet. Therefore ALAC is > > > > drafting a formal > > > >> >request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare an Issue > > > > Report. At the same > > > >> > > > >> This above statement is the problem. What ALAC can do is > > > > ask the GNSO > > > >> Council to ask for an Issues Report to be prepared. > > > > > > > > Huh? If you go to > > > > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > > > > < http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, point > > > > 2, it says that upon the request of "a properly > > > supported > > > > motion from an > > > > Advisory Committee", staff will create an Issue Report, > > > > which will then > > > > go to the GNSO council together with a recommendation on > > > > whether or not > > > > to start a PDP. You clarified a few mails ago that > > > according > > > > to Dan "a > > > > properly supported motion" is one that the majority of > > > the > > > > ALAC approved > > > > in a formal vote. > > > > > > > > I don't know how that can be read differently - are you > > > sure > > > > that you > > > > mean what you wrote? I thought Maria had said that the > > > GNSO > > > > council > > > > needs to approve the starting of a PDP, not the creation > > > of > > > > an issue report. > > > > -- > > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] > > > bertola.eu > > > > > > -- > > > 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: [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif][image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif]+44 (20) 8800-1011 > > USA Tel: [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif][image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif]+1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif][image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif]+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 > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.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

3 2

Fwd: Meeting minutes from Lisbon
by Izumi AIZU March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

This is what Milton sent to NCUC list already. thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> Date: 2007/03/29 1:25 Subject: Meeting minutes from Lisbon To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu DRAFT v. 1.0. Those who were there, feel free to supplement. NCUC Lisbon meeting notes ATTENDANCE: Milton Mueller, Syracuse University Convergence Center, Chair Norbert Klein, Open Forum Cambodia, GNSO Council Rep. Marcelo Fernandes, CGI Brasil, Executive Committee, LACC region Robert Guerra, CPSR, Executive Committee, North America region Karen Banks, APC, NCUC NomCom appointee Glen Ricart, University of Maryland, PIR Board Carlos Afonso, RITS Brasil, Tinwee Tan, National University of Singapore Victoria McEvedy, Solicitor, NCUC rep on new gTLD working groups Adam Peake, Glocom Avri Doria, CPSR/APC Nonmembers George Sadowsky, Bill Manning, Liz Williams, and Monika Ermert visited at various times CONSTITUENCY BUSINESS Financial Report: We have most of the last PIR and Afilias grants remaining, mostly allocated to travel. Election results, officers, terms: Thanks to Marcelo and CGI for their excellent election software. Milton Mueller was elected chair for the next year, but warned that he will not run next year and it is not too soon to think about who might do it next. Robin Gross elected to another 3 year term for GNSO Council New executive committee: North America region: Robert Guerra, CPSR, Canada Europe region: Georg Grève, Free Software Foundation Europe, Germany Africa region: Olivier Nana Nzepa. Africa Management, Cameroun Latin America/ Caribbean region: Marcelo Fernandes, The Committee for Democratization in Information Technology of Pernambuco, Brazil Asia-Pacific region: Horacio Cadiz, Philippine Network Foundation, The Philippines All serve one year terms. There was some discussion about asking members to renew; this would be good for the constituency if we had the capacity to pull it off. Need to develop an annual report. 4 new members: March of Dimes, FSF Europe, ISOC-NY, MINC. Domain name: use the one developed by the Brazilians? Gain access to ncuc.icann.org PIR RELATIONSHIP End of first round of grant commitments made under Ed Viltz's term as CEO. Karen and Carlos volunteer to develop another proposal. Robert Guerra volunteers use of CPSR's account if donors need to give to a 501(3)c. Glen Ricart reported that PIR was searching for a new CEO, and for new Board members. He said he believes there is support for a new funding proposal. NOMCOM VISIT George Sadowsky and Bill Manning entered to pitch nominations. Bill Manning said that ICANN had the opportunity to significantly recast itself. Three Board members -- seats currently held by Joie Ito, Vanda Scartezini and Vint Cerf -- are needed. Vint Cerf is term limited and cannot reapply. Same is true of Alejandro, although he was appointed by GNSO not Nomcom. The GNSO Council positions held by Avri Doria and Sofia Bekele are up for reappointment via Nomcom. So are ccNSO positions and the ALAC seat held by Jacqueline Morris. Constituency members encouraged strongly by Karen Banks to think of good people for these positions. Statements of interest will be due May 1. The Committee is concerned about the pace at which it is receiving applications. By June, the Nomcom will be asking us to appoint a new representative. BRUCE TONKIN VISIT Bruce Tonkin, candidate for the GNSO Board seat running unopposed, visited and we discussed some of the GNSO issues, notably Whois and new gTLDs. He was also asked about his centrist tac and his role as a facilitator of Board-GNSO relations. ISSUE DISCUSSIONS IDNs * Dec05 PDP working group Avri: IDNs are part of the new gTLD proceeding, but results hav not been discussed in a council meeting yet. Liz: IDNs should as much as possible be subject to the same criteria as other new gTLDs. Tin Wee Tan reported. Language communities * should they be independent of ICANN process, or coopted within ICANN process? There is activity in ccNSO and GAC around this. No answer yet. PDP has no idea what kind of an evaluation process will be implemented. Who can represent a language community? TTW: various groups formed for this, e.g. Arab and CDNC. These groups may not believe in the effectiveness of any ICANN process, and may not want to participate. China's "nuclear option" announced last March, no Chinese involved in GNSO IDN process. MM: can we define principles to narrow decision making criteria of these groups? Principles to guide position formation on IDN issues: * IDN implementation is a priority for ICANN and for NCUC * New IDN gTLDs provide an opportunity to create a more diverse global distribution of registration suppliers. [* Introduction of IDNs should extend access and not fragment it] * While we recognize that governments (at all levels) and ccTLDs have a significant interest in IDN implementation, their monopoly control of IDNs should not be a policy presumption. Carlos: translations/transliterations of domain names - position needs to be determined WHOIS Strong pressure for a "natural person, noncommercial" vs. "corporate, commercial" distinction NCUC believes that commercial status of domain is unimportant; there are individual businesspeople, "sole traders," using their home as offices. These have a right to privacy regardless. Too much activity can be considered "use in commerce" to make this the dividing line. Should you be able to see who you are doing business with? Yes, but this is dealt with adquately in other legal spheres. Should city be added to jurisdiction? No. Access for law enforcement ("tiered access") Who gets it? Just law enforcement or private actors? Many of us prefer status quo to a "white list" tiered access that includes private actors and gives them unrestricted access. Who pays for it? Cost must be placed on users of the system to access information. Procedure: We are against a new, 30-90 day working group. The basis for an acceptable compromise should be worked out here. We support some kind of a Council vote to take "special circumstances" off the table. This will also pressure the other side to compromise (finally). NEW GTLDs, PRO, RESERVED NAMES Background: PRO: Currently collecting "best" sunrise practices and dispute resolution practices. RN: probably renewed for another 30 day cycle. More work on controversial names, geographical names, needed. Board must approve any decisions at some point. No possibility of creating an automated process. Ergo, Avri believes that any "bad" name will be stopped by Board if the rules don't stop it. Challenge mechanisms: must be minimized and carefully circumscribed Can the draft mention freedom of expression somewhere? Victoria says she put it in. Trademark law is territorial, free expression a defense in trademark cases. No one country should have a veto. HR Conventions. FoE includes right to offend. Every national government has content laws, so TLD strings can fall under those, as can the content associated with web sites under those names. JOINT NCUC-ALAC MEETING For NCUC: Mueller, Banks, Klein, Ricart. Izumi Aizu read a summary of comments by Vittorio. LSE report did not necessarily say NCUC and ALAC should merge, it might just include individual users in a new GNSO civil society constituency. Should we merge? I [vittorio] do not know. By not merging, we have two separate voices. Direct individual participation fits in well with US culture but not otherwise. Bad time for a merge, give RALOs two years and allow ALAC review to take place. Mueller: We did not propose a merger of NCUC and ALAC and are not interested in getting into that now. We would like an umbrella organization for civil society in ICANN. LSE report is vague about what civil society is, blurs the difference between noncommercial organizations and individual users. This indicates that the rest of the world is probably confused as well. This confusion could be dangerous in a restructuring of GNSO. Banks: We don't need to merge we need a civil society forum. A looser structure where you don't have to worry about what hat you are wearing. Likes umbrella idea. Izumi: doesn't like umbrella term. What is above us, what are we sheltering from? ALAC getting more complicated. Review makes things shaky. Alice: I am confused about how NCUC and ALAC relate. Greenberg: she is not confused, the structure is confusing. Izumi proposes issue cooperation, focused on the new domain tasting resolution. Mueller, I don't think issue cooperation is the problem. It is the confusion of entry points for participation in ICANN. There needs to be a firm, joint recognition of the way people who are not business interests come into ICANN and where they go. What about organizations that apply to be ALS's but do not qualify, yet they may qualify for NCUC. Alice: proposes a procedure for ALS handling that ensures that the correct applicants go to the correct way. We appoint a NCUC-ALAC liaison. The group agreed to do that within one week. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0