- At-Large - lists.icann.org

IDN Wikis Go Live - in 11 Languages - http://idn.icann.org
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 15, 2007

Oct. 15, 2007

From http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-15oct07.htm My Name, My Language, My Internet: IDN Test Goes Live ICANN launches global test of Internationalized Domain Names 15 October 2007 ICANN is celebrating the ability of people to get "My name, My Language. My Internet" wiki pages with the launch of the IDN evaluation with T-Shirts displaying example.test in the 11 languages. MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: Internet users around the globe can now experiment with their name in their language on their Internet with today’s launch of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers live testing of Internationalized Domain Names in 11 languages. “This is one of the most exciting times yet in the development of IDNs,” said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN’s President and CEO. “Internet users who speak the 11 languages of the test can play a key role in testing how IDNs operate, and help us move toward full implementation for all the languages of the world.” Internet users around the globe can now to access wiki pages with the domain name example.test in the 11 test languages -- Arabic, Persian, Chinese (simplified and traditional), Russian, Hindi, Greek, Korean, Yiddish, Japanese and Tamil. The wikis will allow Internet users to establish their own subpages with their own names in their own language -- one suggestion is: example.test/yourname. ICANN has also put a video explaining the evaluation process on YouTube, and available on the ICANN website. The wiki pages can be accessed by typing example.test in the characters of one of the 11 languages, or by going to http:// idn.icann.org. “These wikipages are key to the test. We want to know how the URL displays in the Internet browser, if it works when you cut and paste it into the body of an email to a friend, and how all of this impacts the root zone,” Dr Twomey added. The 11 evaluation wikis will remain online until IDNs are fully implemented and the first top-level domain is introduced in the evaluation language. The full introduction of IDNs will mean that people can write the whole of a domain name in the characters used to write their own language. Presently you can only use these characters before the dot, so .com, .net, .org and the like can only be written in characters from basic Latin. IDNs will change this so that literally tens of thousands of characters will be available to the world. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 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

ALAC / ALS - users and policy
by Adam Peake Oct. 15, 2007

Oct. 15, 2007

thinking about the At-Large Summit proposal, some recent discussion about rules and procedures, role of the NomCom, etc. (NomCom in many ways replaced the original concept of an At Large directly representing users in ICANN.) It's not clear to me what the ALS do. As an essential building block of the ALAC I think it's time the ALS and ALAC started supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN. There seem to be about 100 ALS, how many have a webpage devoted to informing users of ALAC activities and contributions to ICANN? How many even have a mailing list used to pass on information about ALAC and ICANN activities? (not many.) Example. About new gTLD policy Vittorio recently wrote: At 4:35 PM +0200 10/12/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >Hi, I don't want to sound rude, but I do have to post a call to order - >if the members of the ALAC are so busy that they cannot devote any time >to the single most important policy issue of the next few months, what >do we have an ALAC for? > >Perhaps it's just a matter of getting priorities right. > This "single most important policy issue of the next few months". Within the next couple of days how many ALS webpages or mailing lists will make information about this new working group available? I just took a look at a few ALS websites (quite a few don't seem to be functioning), hardly any make substantive mention of ICANN and ALAC let alone any policy information or discussion. A suggestion. Before the first ICANN meeting of 2008. (1.) Whenever ALAC is to provide input on an ICANN policy activity, ALAC delegates will ensure that a summary describing the policy activity, ALAC's intended input to it, and any questions ALAC would like users to address, is provided to ALS so they can make such information available to their members and ALAC community at large. (2.) All ALS will "Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership [including how to join the group], working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s)." (3.) All ALS will "Commit to supporting 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." To this end all ALS will provide: A section on their website dedicated to information about the ALS (2 above) and ALAC and provide information about ALAC policy discussions and how users can contribute. The website must include a mechanism for receiving public comment on issues being discussed. ALS officers will ensure that public comment is summarized and provided to the ALAC. If the ALS is unable to create and operate a website then pages will be made available on the ALAC website or ALAC wiki. A mailing list where policy discussions can take place. The list will be open to any interested individual from their country/region. ALS officers will ensure that list discussion is summarized and provided to the ALAC. (4.) ALAC delegates will be responsible for ensuring comments from ALS are considered in the ALAC's response to any policy activity. A record of ALS contributions should be maintained on the ALAC website. (5.) ALS officers (including ALS officers who may also be ALAC delegates) will only eligible for financial support to attend ICANN meetings or regional RALO meetings, if their ALS meets the criteria provided in 1,2,3 above. I think it should be obvious why this is important. Reaction from the board and senior staff to the successful creation of the RALOs has been very positive. The ICANN Sao Paulo meeting was the first time I heard Vint Cerf talk about how he saw a possibility of the ALAC community, though the RALO structures, being able to provide direct representation to the Board. As someone who tried to maintain the At Large elections I thought this pretty significant. During a workshop in Lisbon NomCom <http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-nomcom-28mar07.htm> this time quoting... VINT CERF: It occurs to me -- I can't predict this, of course, but it occurs to me that if we are successful with the rapidly forming RALO structure that some day we might imagine that board members might be appointed by those RALOs. We're not there yet. But is it possible that we can now go to the formed RALOs and say, in emulation of what might ultimately occur, can you supply recommendations for people to serve on the ALAC. (end Vint quote). At a meeting of the ALAC and board and Paul Twomey in San Juan, Vint again said the same thing again: ALAC via the RALO structures might select Directors. Paul agreed. Roberto (as Vice Chair) answered a question about how the board could see ALAC achieving direct such representation said it would have to see real bottom up policy development, users being consulted in policy and there being clear processes for that happening (I'm sure Roberto will correct me if I am misremembering/misinterpreting his comments.) It's frustrating that the ALAC/ALS seem to have done nothing to make this direct representation possible. I think we should start. Thanks, Adam

5 6

(off topic) New Zealand’s Guide to Online Participation
by Robert Guerra Oct. 14, 2007

Oct. 14, 2007

Given out ongoing discussion about participation and engagement - i thought the following document might be good reading ahead of our Strategy meeting. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 --- New Zealand’s Guide to Online Participation The Guide to Online Participation will help State servants identify and develop exciting and innovative ways to engage with New Zealanders in policy and service design and delivery. This work contributes to achieving a world-class professional State Services. The current Guide to Online Participation is the first step in an evolving area of theory and practice - it will be tested and refined, and we require your help to improve its contents. http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/participation/opg-07-full.pdf

1 0

For whom does the bell toll?
by Danny Younger Oct. 14, 2007

Oct. 14, 2007

While Adam seems to be comfortable with one or two pages describing an issue, I am not. The ALAC is an Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board. It has a primary responsibility: to engage in fact-finding, and to deliver recommendations based upon those findings to the Board. Review the record of the SSAC, an Advisory Committee that takes its responsibilities seriously. Twenty papers produced in the last five years with up to 85 pages of commentary on a single topic. Look at the GNSO. If the GNSO can produce 100+ page tomes articulating and documenting the scope of policy discussions on any given area, be it WHOIS or new gTLDs, and if they can devote years in pursuit of finding consensus on policy matters, then I find it inexcusable that this Advisory Committee should think in terms of unsupported Statements that are a few paragraphs or pages in length. This is not what a massive budget extending into the hundreds of thousands of dollars is supposed to be producing. It is not sufficient to merely accept your free passage to ICANN sessions three times a year and then offer up nothing more than banalities. Do you realize how many full-time professional policy consultants could have been hired with the funds that have gone into this rathole? At the very least consultants produce work-product that can properly inform and guide the community. What will the ALAC produce? Where is the return on investment? Where is ALAC member participation in policy initiatives? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

1 0

ALAC / ALS - users and policy
by Danny Younger Oct. 14, 2007

Oct. 14, 2007

Jacqueline wrote: "which leads to NOTHING submitted from At Large - see the GTLD issue" I think everyone should take a moment to read the NCUC comments on new gTLDs. It's a comprehensive 25-page document put together by an organization that receives $0 from ICANN. http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STMT-JUNE2007.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

1 0

At-Large Summit update
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Hello folks. We have been recently informed by Nick that the Summit, as it is presently developed as described at http://www.icannwiki.org/wiki/At-Large_Global_Summit http://www.icannwiki.org/wiki/ICANN_Ensemble is officially dead, by decree of ICANN staff. No staff support will be offered and no funding would be made available for anyone to attend. We are told by Nick (who has been our sole ICANN contact from day one) that the decision is final, though a conference call has been requested between us, Nick and Denise Michell in order to clarify the rationale. Although no formal application was ever made, we have been told that a formal rejection letter will be sent after the conference call. To say that this early rejection was unexpected and disappointing is an understatement. We have done absolutely everything that has been asked of us by Nick. We have acted in a manner that we believe to be professional, fiscally responsible, and accommodating to all concerns expressed by staff to date. What has been most upsetting has been the attitude of ICANN staff, which has obviously put itself in the role of sole judge of how to spend the money ICANN allocates for At-Large. (Indeed, while being constantly telling us that there was no money available for the Summit, staff has repeatedly refused to actually reveal what the allocation is.) We had hoped that we could work with staff as partner and facilitator, in the implementation of a project which has attracted support from ALAC and all regions. Instead we have found nothing but a stream of obstacles,from staff that clearly has a different vision of ICANN's At-Large community than the community has of itself. We thank everyone who has offered support and help so far, and are certainly welcome to ideas and methods of keeping the project alive. We still believe that the Summit has the potential to be a key component in the development of the community's ability to make substantial contribution to the ICANN decision-making processes. Since staff has been unsupportive of our request for ongoing collaboration resources, we will maintain the Google Group discussion area at http://groups.google.com/group/icann-summit to which all are welcome. Evan Leibovitch Darlene Thompson

10 12

Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting
by Danny Younger Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Alan, I am prepared to participate in a limited duration At-Large WG on new gTLD policy... as long as there is some indication that other members of the ALAC are prepared to get some policy work done -- that means involvement from the ALAC "as a whole" in such an initiative so that folk like Vittorio don't get stuck with all the heavy lifting (as happened previously in the RAA WG). We could use the gnso-liaison mailing list as the place to hold discussions on the current GNSO new gTLD recommendations so that ultimately a set of questions and/or recommendations may emerge (whether they will be directed to the GNSO Councilors or directly to the Board is for the ALAC to decide). Let me know if you have any issues with this approach. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

10 18

Re: [At-Large] Domain Transfer Problem
by Danny Younger Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Alan, As the comment was posted 13 October, three days after the "renewal", the problem likely hasn't been resolved. To me, incidents of this type lend credence to the need to establish a Uniform Customer Complaint Resolution Mechanism such as the one that AuDa uses -- see http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-04/ (especially articles 14 & 15). As formulating a Resolution Mechanism should probably be a process managed by the GNSO, what is your view on having the ALAC transmit such a request to the GNSO Council? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Domain Transfer Problem
by Danny Younger Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Alan, The exact location of the comment: http://public.icann.org/node/297 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

1 0

Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Dear Members: I have the honour to provide below the results of the above- referenced vote. With 13 or 14 out of 15 potential votes cast (depending upon the regional selection in question), I can certify this as a quorate result. The results may be verified by the following URL saved on the system which hosts the At-Large Community's elections: http:// www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=LQd3RxzYmVRLkU6DT5DM Members will recall that there was no vote necessary for the African Seat, as only one candidate, Khaled Koubaa of Tunisia, was proposed for that region. Poll Results Poll menu: At-Large Nominating Committee Appointments 2008 Report date: Thu 27 Sep 2007 13:54 UTC Asia/Australasia/Pacific Region Seat Number of voters: 13 Quota: 6.500 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Taiuru, Karaitiana (New Zealand) 7.000 7 53.85 6 46.15 2 lost in round 1 Agarwal, Nirmol (India) 6.000 6 46.15 7 53.85 European Region Seat Number of voters: 14 Quota: 7.000 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Miloshevic, Desiree 11.000 11 78.57 3 21.43 2 lost in round 1 Vande Walle, Patrick 3.000 3 21.43 11 78.57 Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Seat Number of voters: 14 Quota: 7.000 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Rnd3 Pref1 % Pref2 % Pref3 % 1 won in round 1 Gigena, Matias Altamira 7.000 7 50.00 2 14.29 5 35.71 2 lost in round 1 Ricciardi, Sebastian 5.000 5 35.71 7 50.00 2 14.29 3 lost in round 1 Ahon, Erick Iriarte 2.000 2 14.29 5 35.71 7 50.00 North American Seat Number of voters: 14 Quota: 7.000 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Rader, Ross 10.000 10 71.43 4 28.57 2 lost in round 1 Leibovitch, Evan 4.000 4 28.57 10 71.43 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 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

20 48