- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALSapplications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Hong: This is precisely what is envisaged by the proposal on how to handle these matters which was put forward for ALAC's review before the March teleconference, and which is scheduled for discussion at the Sunday ALAC meeting in Lisbon. On 21/03/07, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On the long run, why should not the RALOs themselves define their > acceptance procedure, with ALAC only ratifying (and in this case I would > agree that it should be default = YES). The problem is that different RALOs > will have different approaches, also to keep the flexibility of the local > situation. > For instance, in Europe we have a fairly typical case which is the > European umbrella organization for national organizations (remember CECUA?). > As of today, the umbrella organization is not permitted to join. However, > the very reason for having an umbrella organization is to avoid duplication > of effort (and cost) by national bodies. > Another element of difference is individual membership, which will be > allowed for EURALO but not for other RALOs (at least, this is how it looks > as of today). It would not make sense to have the ALAC to have to vote on > each individual application. > > Through reviewing the draft MOU for all RALOs, I find that RALOs will soon > play a big role in ALS applications. At least, they will soon take over the > task of "regional advice" and decide whether to grant "provisional status" > to the applicants. In that case, a RALO may recommend ALAC to approve a > *umbralla organization*. So, even if RALO would be functioning, ALAC would > have to sort out an answer first. > > Hong > > > > > -- -- 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] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALSapplications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

See below On 21/03/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > I will see who from NCUC is attending Lisbon this time - in view of the > packed policy schedule of the Tuesday meeting though I would suggest that we > simply extend that meeting from 1800 - 1900 if the NCUC are amenable to > meeting during that time. > > It is important to say, though, that the ALAC's admission of applicants > and the criteria which it uses to decide admission actually do not have > anything to do with NCUC or any other constituency - and vice versa. If they > were meant to do so the Bylaws would provide for that to be the case, and > they do not. As has been pointed out, those who qualify for membership in > both are entirely welcome at present to join them both if they wish to do so > so - as a result of which there cannot be any competition for members. That > would only be possible if membership in one constituency precluded > membership in the other. > > > There are some fundamental differences. NCUC is a regular constituency of > the GNSO, and as such it has a vote in the Name Council, and a scope that is > related to Domain Names. ALAC is an advisory committee to the Board, and as > such it has a Liaison to the Board (non-voting) but a scope that is not > limited to the DNS. > I might be wrong, but I haven't noticed substantial overlapping in > practice, i.e. I am not aware of many organizations that had the doubt on > whether join one or the other, I would like to know if somebody has > practical cases to show me. This was, by the way, also the subject of my > conversation with Ynternet.org. > > > As to you second very good point, the larger context is important as you > say - however, the larger context is a shifting sand with the advent of the > ALAC review. Addressing the functions and and positions of the two > constituencies is important, but is an entirely separate issue from deciding > on written criteria for evaluating membership applications for THIS > constituency, since, again, organisations are free to join both. > > > Already with the GNSO review we need to tackle this item, as the LSE has > identified the need for a different constituency structure for the GNSO. > Regardless on whether this is going to happen or not, the discussion will > have to address this. > > > To remind everyone of the current situation, we have an ALS applicant > (Telecommunities Canada) who is waiting on a decision on their application, > which is more overdue every day, and that decision is waiting on ALAC > concluding review of the proposal, subject to amendments of course, on how > to evaluate applications for At-Large especially in certain circumstances. > The decision also affects another application, Communica.ch, which is of > long standing based upon the very same issues. > > > On the long run, why should not the RALOs themselves define their > acceptance procedure, with ALAC only ratifying (and in this case I would > agree that it should be default = YES). The problem is that different RALOs > will have different approaches, also to keep the flexibility of the local > situation. > For instance, in Europe we have a fairly typical case which is the > European umbrella organization for national organizations (remember CECUA?). > As of today, the umbrella organization is not permitted to join. However, > the very reason for having an umbrella organization is to avoid duplication > of effort (and cost) by national bodies. > Another element of difference is individual membership, which will be > allowed for EURALO but not for other RALOs (at least, this is how it looks > as of today). It would not make sense to have the ALAC to have to vote on > each individual application. > I have proposed a new model of evaluating ALS applications for the consideration of the ALAC and the community which would do precisely what you are suggesting, and which is congruent also with the new role in evaluating ALS applications which the regions have undertaken in their MoUs with ICANN. You can find the text at: https://st.icann.org/page/alac/6_march_2007/attachments/20070302114536-1-21… These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not deal > with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another > Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility. > > > From previous conversation with the Ombudsman, it seems that we should at > least send a letter to the applicants explaining why there is a delay, > apologize for it, and give a reasonable time frame for processing. > Also, why don't you simply contact the Ombudsman, explain the situation, > and ask for advice? > I am sure that Frank would love to be involved as advisor in an early > stage rather than have to process complaints when it is too late. > Note that I have discussed the situation with Telecommunities Canada so the understand the situation which their application presents some members of ALAC in relation to the still-current application interpretation. I have asked the Ombusdman to review the TC application - he knows a number of the principals and their work - and he understand the current criteria. He was also asked for his view on the proposed clarification to interpretation of ALS applications and he, like the General Counsel and VP Policy Dev, also agreed that he saw it as congruent with the Bylaws. This can be found at: https://st.icann.org/page/alac/6_march_2007/attachments/20070305185723-0-20… Cheers, > Roberto > > > -- -- 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

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

May I suggest that the fastest way to conclude a vote on this appliication is actually to take the vote in the Lisbon meetings. On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > At 03:13 AM 3/21/2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > > > > These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not > deal > > > with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of > another > > > Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility. > > > >Fine. > > Just to clarify -- I'm prepared to withstand challenge from the > ombudsman on his reinterpretation of our substantive criteria for > evaluating ALS applicants. The responsibility for defining those > falls squarely on ALAC, consistent with the Bylaws, and so long as we > have a rational, reasoned basis for our application of those > criteria, he has no power to change that, even at the vociferous > complaint of a denied applicant. > > In order not to give applicants a claim of "undue delay," however, I > move that we open and conduct a new vote ASAP (since we have already > heard objections, we're past the point of a no objections approval of > this applicant). > > --Wendy > > -- > 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/ > -- -- 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

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

It is perhaps worth stating that I put 3/4 in there since there needed to be some number, and the use of the current number in a sort of 'mirror image' role seemed a reasonable place to start from. It could just as easily be a majority of the committee instead; whatever you all felt was sensible. On 21/03/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > I agree. The only thing is that given the way that the last NCUC/ALAC > meeting that I attended went, it will be important to structure the > discussion so that it doesn't degenerate into a rant on how ALAC isn't what > it was years ago, and how it should be scrapped without any more practical > solutions being voiced. > > With regard to the draft guidelines, I think they are OK, but I do have a > concern about the number of votes to turn down an application. Instead of ¾ > votes for approval, we now have ¾ votes required for non-approval. So it's > basically an automatic approval process, which I don't have a problem with, > personally, but it needs to be considered seriously, as this is a major > change in philosophy for the ALAC. From past discussions, I know Wendy is > (of the ALAC members who were involved in that discussion still here so far) > pro automatic approval, and I tend towards the same point of view, but other > may have different positions. > > Jacqueline > > > > *From:* Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:23 PM > *To:* Wendy Seltzer > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS > applications > > > > I agree with Wendy that NCUC and ALAC should cooperate and supplement, not > compete. With that in mind, I propose to have a join ALAC - NCUC meeting in > Lisbon which we used to have at every ICANN meeting. The best timing would > be on Tuesday, during our second ALAC meeting, for say 60 minutes. Either > from around 5 pm, or after we conclude our business. > > Given LSE report, ALS application issues, and coming ALAC review, etc, I > thinkg it's important to address the functions and positions of these two > committee/consituency and also larger civil society/user participation at > ICANN process - for not only ALC, but also for ALS/RALOs. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > 2007/3/6, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>: > > (moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly) > > Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under > to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the > Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that > participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the > operation of each At-Large Structure." > > Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as > participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting > them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and > NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us > to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC. > > --Wendy > > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear Committee: > > > > I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I > thought > > it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective. > > > > It is attached to the agenda page now too > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Director, At-Large > > ICANN > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 > 8:07 AM > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 > 8:07 AM > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

I will see who from NCUC is attending Lisbon this time - in view of the packed policy schedule of the Tuesday meeting though I would suggest that we simply extend that meeting from 1800 - 1900 if the NCUC are amenable to meeting during that time. It is important to say, though, that the ALAC's admission of applicants and the criteria which it uses to decide admission actually do not have anything to do with NCUC or any other constituency - and vice versa. If they were meant to do so the Bylaws would provide for that to be the case, and they do not. As has been pointed out, those who qualify for membership in both are entirely welcome at present to join them both if they wish to do so so - as a result of which there cannot be any competition for members. That would only be possible if membership in one constituency precluded membership in the other. As to you second very good point, the larger context is important as you say - however, the larger context is a shifting sand with the advent of the ALAC review. Addressing the functions and and positions of the two constituencies is important, but is an entirely separate issue from deciding on written criteria for evaluating membership applications for THIS constituency, since, again, organisations are free to join both. To remind everyone of the current situation, we have an ALS applicant (Telecommunities Canada) who is waiting on a decision on their application, which is more overdue every day, and that decision is waiting on ALAC concluding review of the proposal, subject to amendments of course, on how to evaluate applications for At-Large especially in certain circumstances. The decision also affects another application, Communica.ch, which is of long standing based upon the very same issues. These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not deal with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility. On 21/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > I agree with Wendy that NCUC and ALAC should cooperate and supplement, not > compete. With that in mind, I propose to have a join ALAC - NCUC meeting in > Lisbon which we used to have at every ICANN meeting. The best timing would > be on Tuesday, during our second ALAC meeting, for say 60 minutes. Either > from around 5 pm, or after we conclude our business. > > Given LSE report, ALS application issues, and coming ALAC review, etc, I > thinkg it's important to address the functions and positions of these two > committee/consituency and also larger civil society/user participation at > ICANN process - for not only ALC, but also for ALS/RALOs. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > 2007/3/6, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>: > > > > (moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly) > > > > Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under > > to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the > > Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that > > participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the > > operation of each At-Large Structure." > > > > Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as > > participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting > > them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and > > NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us > > to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC. > > > > --Wendy > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > Dear Committee: > > > > > > I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but > > I thought > > > it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective. > > > > > > It is attached to the agenda page now too > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > > Director, At-Large > > > ICANN > > > PO Box 32160 > > > London N4 2XY > > > United Kingdom > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.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

4 6

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Wendy Seltzer March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

At 04:16 AM 3/21/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >May I suggest that the fastest way to conclude a vote on this >appliication is actually to take the vote in the Lisbon meetings. OK, added to the Sunday agenda. --Wendy >On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer ><<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: >At 03:13 AM 3/21/2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > > > > These larger questions you reference are important, but if you > do not deal > > > with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another > > > Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility. > > > >Fine. > >Just to clarify -- I'm prepared to withstand challenge from the >ombudsman on his reinterpretation of our substantive criteria for >evaluating ALS applicants. The responsibility for defining those >falls squarely on ALAC, consistent with the Bylaws, and so long as we >have a rational, reasoned basis for our application of those >criteria, he has no power to change that, even at the vociferous >complaint of a denied applicant. > >In order not to give applicants a claim of "undue delay," however, I >move that we open and conduct a new vote ASAP (since we have already >heard objections, we're past the point of a no objections approval of >this applicant). > >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- <mailto:wendy@seltzer.org>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://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.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: <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / >AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: >nashtonhart >Online >Bio: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart -- 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

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Of course I don't mean to suggest that At-Large should not encourage any organisation that is eligible from joining the NCUC, just that At-Large should not turn down organisations that are clearly modelled around a mission and purpose that is very "At-Large". On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > > It is important to say, though, that the ALAC's admission of applicants > and > > the criteria which it uses to decide admission actually do not have > > anything > > to do with NCUC or any other constituency - and vice versa. If they were > > meant to do so the Bylaws would provide for that to be the case, and > > they do > > not. As has been pointed out, those who qualify for membership in both > are > > entirely welcome at present to join them both if they wish to do so so - > as > > a result of which there cannot be any competition for members. That > would > > only be possible if membership in one constituency precluded membership > in > > the other. > > That may be true in the abstract, but as the NCUC is a member-supported > constituency, while the ALAC is ICANN-supported, non-commercial > organizations offered a choice between the two might incorrectly choose > ALAC (incorrectly because they'd then get no path to GNSO votes), which > is a real and valid concern of NCUC. Even if the bylaws don't > explicitly provide for the situation, I think we have an independent > obligation to Internet users not to further weaken the voting > non-commercial civil society component of ICANN. > > --Wendy > > -- > 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/ > -- -- 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] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Wendy Seltzer March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

(moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly) Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure." Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Committee: > > I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I thought > it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective. > > It is attached to the agenda page now too > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom -- 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/

3 2

The Resolutions for the Lisbon Meeting
by Carlton A Samuels March 20, 2007

March 20, 2007

Dear LACRALO Members: The ALAC has drafted several policy resolutions with intent to pursue them at the Lisbon Meeting. These are both numbered and named: AL/2007/R/1: Domain Tasting/Monetisation which can be seen on the ALAC wiki at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1; AL/2007/R/2: Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_2; AL/2007/R/3: Internationalised Domain Names at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_3. In respect of AL/2007/R/2, the Secretariat recommends that our ALAC representatives be authorized to vote IN FAVOUR, as stated. In respect of AL/2007/R/1, the LACRALO Secretariat recommends a revised final paragraph which clearly resolves all the previous whereas. That aside, the Secretariat is persuaded to the view that this matter is outside of ICANNs remit. We therefore recommend that a statement that resolves the sense of ALAC be prepared. We further recommend that the statement be in the form of a non-binding resolution which, in effect, advises ICANN to exert its moral influence in the several fora and in concert with others, inveigh against the practice. The Secretariat recommends that our ALAC representatives be authorized to support this position. In respect of AL/2007/R/3, the LACRALO Secretariat recommends that Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the resolution be changed from We strongly suggest the following principles be followed in policy-making and technical application process: to We are resolved that the following principles be adopted for policy-making and the technical application process: The LACRALO Secretariat further recommends that our ALAC representatives be authorized to vote IN FAVOUR of the amended resolution. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels [Spanish Version] Queridos LACRALO Members: El ALAC ha redactado varias resoluciones de la política con la intención para seguirlos en la Reunión de Lisboa. Estos son numerados y son denominados: AL/2007/R/1: Domain Tasting/Monetisation de dominio que puede ser visto en el wiki de ALAC en https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1 ; AL/2007/R/2: Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues en https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 ; AL/2007/R/3: Internationalised Domain Names en https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_3 . En el respeto de AL/2007/R/2, que la Secretaría recomienda que nuestros representantes de ALAC sean autorizados a votar EN el FAVOR, como indicado. En el respeto de AL/2007/R/1, la Secretaría de LACRALO recomienda un párrafo final revisado que se resuelve claramente todo el previo "mientras que". Eso aparte, la Secretaría es persuadida a la vista que este asunto está fuera de ICANN remite. Nosotros por lo tanto recomienda que una declaración que se resuelva el sentido de ALAC es preparada. Recomendamos aún más que la declaración esté en forma de una resolución no-obligatorio que, del hecho, aconseja ICANN a ejercer su influencia moral en el varios fora y en el concierto con otros, vitupera contra la práctica. La Secretaría recomienda que nuestros representantes de ALAC sean autorizados a sostener esta posición. En el respeto de AL/2007/R/3, la Secretaría de LACRALO recomienda ese Párrafo 3, la Oración 2 de la resolución son cambiadas de "sugerimos totalmente que los principios siguientes son seguidos en la elaboración de la política y la aplicación técnica procesa:" a "somos resueltos que los principios siguientes son adoptados para la elaboración de la política y la aplicación técnica procesa:" La Secretaría de LACRALO recomienda aún más que nuestros representantes de ALAC sean autorizados a votar EN el FAVOR de la resolución enmendada. Los saludos, Carlton Samuels

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Chair Resigns from Chair Position for Health Reasons
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Dear All: I have the unfortunate duty to forward the news below - which some of you may have already seen - from the Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee. May I say personally - and I'm sure on behalf of all the ICANN Staff too - that we wish you a speedy recovery Annette - and I'm sure you'll be back in your usual form soon :) Begin forwarded message: > From: Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> > Date: 18 March 2007 14:58:30 GMT > To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)spamcop.net> > Subject: [Fwd: personal news] > > Dear ALAC fellows, > > For weeks and weeks I have been hoping to recover, but my lungs are > still causing trouble. It now became clear that I will not be able to > take part in the Lisbon meeting. > > In view of the uncertainty about how long I will not not be able to > function fully as ALAC Chair, I have come to the conclusion that I > should ask you to elect someone else from our team to carry the > responsibilities of ALAC Chair. This has been a very difficult > decision > for me as I was earnestly trying to discharge the responsibilities you > have entrusted me with. > > Meanwhile, I'm slowly recovering and hope to be back at my regular job > with the new responsibilities that have been kindly assigned to me as > soon as possible. Needless to say, I also look forward to being > back on > the ALAC team and wish you all and ALAC the very best. > > Once again, I would like to thank you all for your trust, support, > cooperation and understanding. > > Annette -- 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

2 1