- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] pending ALS application comunica.ch
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 12, 2007

Feb. 12, 2007

As you know, such a status does not presently exist within the ALS Application process. Rather than operate in an ad-hoc way outside the existing process structure, I would suggest the best route for Communica would be to withdraw their application and resubmit it at the point at which they believe that they are eligible for accreditation. Of course the Committee may wish to consider whether or not it woudl be useful to to add such a status for future applications. On 12/02/07, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> wrote: > > FYI: > > I got back to the Swiss ALS applicant comunica.ch. They told me that they > would like to let their application "pending" until they will modify their > bylaws at their next General Assembly to meet the necessary critiria and > then come back to us. > > Annette > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

pending ALS application comunica.ch
by Annette Muehlberg Feb. 12, 2007

Feb. 12, 2007

FYI: I got back to the Swiss ALS applicant comunica.ch. They told me that they would like to let their application "pending" until they will modify their bylaws at their next General Assembly to meet the necessary critiria and then come back to us. Annette

1 0

WHOIS policy
by Wendy Seltzer Feb. 12, 2007

Feb. 12, 2007

Here's the draft report the WHOIS task force is considering <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/docUOzrntSDL0.doc> Currently, every domain name registrant is required to enter "accurate" information in the publicly available WHOIS database, including name, address, telephone number, and email address. Those who wish not to have this personal information displayed publicly must pay extra to registrars for "proxy" services which often allow their information to be revealed anyhow when someone challenges the domain registrant's speech. I believe there are serious free speech, privacy, and anonymity concerns with the current system. ALAC could submit comments to the Task Force and the GNSO. (As Danny Younger has noted, there are procedural problems with the PDP's lack of opportunity to consider public comment, as well as substantive problems with the proposals.) Since the debate has changed little since I sent this message in December, I re-send it to spark discussion on this policy issue: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg02529.html> Notes on WHOIS: The WHOIS draft report reports the majority view for an "Operational Point of Contact" (OPOC), which would have registrants replace the administrative and technical contacts with one or more OPOC, who could be the registrant or a third party delegated by the registrant. This would enable better contactability and allow the registrant to remove personally identifying information from public display. "The purpose of the operational point of contact is to resolve, or to reliably pass on data to resolve, operational issues relating to a domain name." Registrants would be required to list their own name and country, but would be able to keep other information out of the publicly available WHOIS. (Under both proposals, the information would still be collected.) A minority supported the IP constituency's "Special Circumstances" proposal, under which individual non-commercial registrants could protect privacy only if they "can demonstrate that they have a reasonable basis for concern that public access to specific data about themselves (e.g., name, address, e-mail address, telephone number) that would otherwise be publicly displayed in Whois would jeopardize a concrete and real interest in their personal safety or security that cannot be protected other than by suppressing that public access. An individual would be able to hold special circumstance designation for only a limited number (e.g., 5) gTLD domain names at a time." Proxy services would be disallowed under this proposal. The TF will also discuss recommendations made earlier on compliance with national law, which may require registrars to provide privacy options. Questions: Why (in the special circumstances proposal) are we asking individuals to pay extra for basic privacy rights? How does WHOIS policy accommodate the needs of individual Internet users as domain name registrants? as users of Internet services? Is public display of personal data compatible with national data protection law and public policy? I think we should resist the distinction between commercial and non-commercial registrants because it is unworkable in practice: Is the activist who sells t-shirts to carry his message, or adwords to pay for site hosting a "commercial" user? I have recommended an additional option, that a domain name could be suspended if the registrant did not want to reveal personally identifying information. Enforcement interests (stopping a domain-hosted scam, for example) could be realized even before the registrant was identified, while law enforcement would have all the ordinary tools available to it once it demonstrated there was reason to believe the activity was unlawful. -- 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/

8 23

[ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANN Regions underway
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 11, 2007

Feb. 11, 2007

Just a reminder, there is an open consultation on the Geographic Regions of ICANN, and whether the regions should be changed. The At-Large community's views would be welcomed - this point was actually reinforced to me today by Paul Twomey amongst others. Might I suggest at least two points which could be communicated, these two points being ones I have heard mentioned by others, and not being personal observations? 1) Some member-states of the European Union are located in regions outside of Europe, which ought to be changed. In fact, candidate states of the EU might also be better situated within the European region than in others (Turkey comes to mind as an obvious example of this); 2) The Asia-Pacific region is currently enormous. I have heard it said in particular that some representatives of Middle-Eastern groups believe it ought to be a region of it's own, not in the APAC region. For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm. -- 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

12 13

Question
by Roberto Gaetano Feb. 9, 2007

Feb. 9, 2007

Folks, This question is mainly directed at our African colleagues, but I am not subscribed to that region's list and also think that this could raise a discussion of general interest. The Board will consider in the next weeks the request for delegation of the .eh ccTLD for West Sahara. One of the elements to be taken into account in a delegation/redelegation/revocation is the interests of the local internet community. However, this si far from being something easy to assess. IMHO, the AtLarge can be of help. So, the general question is whether ALAC should be involved, providing an opinion/advice on the delegation/redelegation/revocation process. Notably, we have the debate about what to do with the current .su that is no longer part of the ISO-3166-1 list: what is the opinion of the local Internet community? Specifically, we have now the case of Western Sahara. Does any of you have any knowledge of the EH internet community, maybe seen from one of the neighbouring countries? Does it have any added value to start this type of debate? Cheers, Roberto PS: please feel free to forward this message to the African At Large mailing list.

4 3

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANN Regions underway
by Lawyer Nirmol Feb. 9, 2007

Feb. 9, 2007

I dont understand the idea. Internet is a world wide concept and the formation of managing societies like ALAC was to my understanding merely of convinience in administration. The concerns of the middle east countries has to be addressed by their At large structures and communicated to ALAC which in turn will communicate it to ICANN. As the role is mere advisory how does it matter as to how the administration block is structured. ISVK-India fails to buy the idea of creating jurisdiction over the administration of ICANN. Regards, Nirmol ISVK India On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 Nick Ashton-Hart wrote : >Just a reminder, there is an open consultation on the Geographic Regions of >ICANN, and whether the regions should be changed. > >The At-Large community's views would be welcomed - this point was actually >reinforced to me today by Paul Twomey amongst others. > >Might I suggest at least two points which could be communicated, these two >points being ones I have heard mentioned by others, and not being personal >observations? > >1) Some member-states of the European Union are located in regions outside >of Europe, which ought to be changed. In fact, candidate states of the EU >might also be better situated within the European region than in others >(Turkey comes to mind as an obvious example of this); >2) The Asia-Pacific region is currently enormous. I have heard it said in >particular that some representatives of Middle-Eastern groups believe it >ought to be a region of it's own, not in the APAC region. > >For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm. >-- 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 >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >_______________________________________________ >APAC-ALS mailing list >APAC-ALS(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-als_atlarge-lists.ican…

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [NA-ALS] [ALAC] [EURO-ALS] [LAC-ALS] Major Milestone Coming Up
by RJGlass Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

eloquently put, Danny. -randy ____________________ Domain name services http://www.Psyberdomain.com Help the needy http://www.DDMF.org Help yourself http://www.AmericaAtLarge.org ------------------------- ----- Original Message ---- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU <aizu(a)anr.org> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wz-berlin.de> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:48:05 AM Subject: Re: [NA-ALS] [ALAC] [EURO-ALS] [LAC-ALS] Major Milestone Coming Up Re: "Maybe if a policy issue disucssion were started, we'd get this sort of participation now that we have so many more ALSes?" Jacqueline, Just speaking from my experience, having witnessed the formational efforts of the IDNO (Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency) and those of the icannatlarge group, I can tell you that most participants will choose to focus on administrative considerations rather than on policy matters. They would rather argue the merits of weighted voting moreso than discuss the lack of competitive choice offered under current Redemption Grace Period policy. They would rather pontificate on the topic of Internet Governance than deal with the hard issues associated with UDRP reform. They would rather debate the nuances of membership criteria and the relative fairness of proposed membership fee structures than discuss registrar circumvention of the Consensus Deletes Policy. They will spend years building an institution that devotes 100% of its time to administrative minutia and will forever continue to postpone policy discussions because they never seem to finish their higher priority organizational work... and then the institution collapses as little by little the players realize that nothing of consequence is getting done. I've seen it happen. Twice. and this will surely be round three if we remain on the same track. In the meantime, others within the GNSO are formulating policy (while the at-large remains excluded from this venue as well as from from the ICANN Board itself). There was a time when the country code managers realized that the construct that they were forced to work within (the DNSO) was not serving their needs. They left an unworkable model and created their own Supporting Organization... The construct that ICANN has forced upon the at-large clearly does not meet our needs. We too should vote with our feet and put together that which is right for us -- a Supporting Organization effort wherein policy issues can properly be debated. That model already exists and has worked reasonably well. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and get locked into administrative and process-related debates; further, we don't need to accept the flawed ALAC/RALO construct just because it is the only option on the table. We should be pursuing that which is right for us, a Supporting Organization that allows for Board-level representation, rather than blithely accepting what amounts to an incredibly lousy deal. We have gone from the promise of directors on half of the Board to no directors on the Board whatsoever. This is not acceptable. It will never be acceptable and I will never buy into a plan such as the ALAC/RALO/ALS diversion that makes permanent our disenfranchisement. best wishes, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.icann.…

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANN Regions underway
by RJGlass Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

I would like to reiterate support for something, but I'm not quite sure what. -Randy Glass A@L ____________________ Domain name services http://www.Psyberdomain.com Help the needy http://www.DDMF.org Help yourself http://www.AmericaAtLarge.org ------------------------- ----- Original Message ---- From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)spamcop.net> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:01:55 AM Subject: Re: [NA-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANN Regions underway If the community wishes to reiterate support for this recommendation on the regions now would be an appropriate time to do so. With respect to the other points below not related to the consultation on regions, the upcoming External Review of At-Large would, it is submitted, be an opportunity to make these views known, and any others with respect to the structure of At-Large within ICANN, for those who might wish to do so. On 07/02/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Nick, you may want to remind Paul that the At-Large Study Committee recommended the creation of a sixth ICANN region comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa). Of course, the board ignored this recommendation along with the recommendation to establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALS0) and the recommendation to seat 6 At-Large Directors within the 19 member Board. So why don't we play at reorganizing the regions instead of focusing on efforts to restore the representation that has been denied to us... perhaps that will keep us sufficiently diverted... ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 -- -- 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 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.icann.…

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-ALS] [ALAC] multiple copies of messages and other issues...
by RJGlass Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

I agree on your first. I had no idea there was a RALO formation document. Randy Glass A@L ----- Original Message ---- From: "lists(a)privaterra.info" <lists(a)privaterra.info> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:39:02 PM Subject: [NA-ALS] [ALAC] multiple copies of messages and other issues... two quick comments: First, I'm getting various multiple copies of the messages posted to the list. 2-4 copies at times. it is a bit much, and would appreciate any effort that helps fix the problem. Second, I'd like for the discussion to move from general comments and process related items to focused contributions on key policy issues open for comment. ALAC Review (starting this month), ALAC 07 budget, WHOIS, Domain name tasting come immediately to mind. As well, would be great to get comments from the intl. ALS community on the RALO formation document being drafted by those in north America. NA Ralo documents: MOU - http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Operating Principles - http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP regards Robert _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.icann.…

1 0