- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the IC ANN Board ofDirectors - result ?
by Izumi AIZU Sept. 5, 2007

Sept. 5, 2007

Maybe I am politically naiive, as I thought giving extension to those who missed is not a bad idea. However, frankly speaking, I am OK with either option - to close it now and announce, or extend for two more votes/ or two more days. The difference is not so big to me. I am OK with either candidate to become the Board Liaison, as well. It's not really the BIGGEST issue we need to face ;-). Too much energy and emphasis on symbolic politics/game is not what I like to see. Let's move on in a clear and rational way, that's all I like to see. Sorry if I am insensitive. izumi 2007/9/6, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com>: > When I was on ALAC, I had the honor of setting > up, running, and tabulating several polls for > voting on ALS's. I agree that the election must > have an end date and time that is adhered to. > While most ALAC members voted promptly, there > were always people that for one reason or another > forgot to vote, couldn't work with the ballot due > to technical problems, or just didn't vote due to > lack of interest, confusion, or other reasons.. > > BUT--I used to email non-voters a couple days and > a day before the close and also hours before > close. It was my goal to make it 100% > participation. Isn't there someone monitoring the > election that could take that on? > > There's only so much we can do. But extending > votes to "give everyone a chance" is not in the > larger interest, in my opinion. > Jean > Ex ALAC NA > > > At 6:00 PM +0200 9/5/07, Annette Muehlberg recently said: > >ThatZs right! > > > >Annette > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > >> Gesendet: 05.09.07 17:42:07 > >> An: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC > >>Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result > >>? > > > > > >> > >> Here's a suggestion to improve the optics around this process, > >> because from afar it does not look good. When you call an election, > >> with a process and a deadline for a vote, you need to stick to it. > >> Extending the voting period makes it appear as though you are gaming > >> the system in order to gather enough votes to change the result. > >> Whether that is what is happening or not doesn't matter as much as > >> the integrity of the process. > >> > >> -- Bret > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > >> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > >> > > > >-- > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > >ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

3 2

Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result ?
by Annette Muehlberg Sept. 5, 2007

Sept. 5, 2007

ThatŽs right! Annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > Gesendet: 05.09.07 17:42:07 > An: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result ? > > Here's a suggestion to improve the optics around this process, > because from afar it does not look good. When you call an election, > with a process and a deadline for a vote, you need to stick to it. > Extending the voting period makes it appear as though you are gaming > the system in order to gather enough votes to change the result. > Whether that is what is happening or not doesn't matter as much as > the integrity of the process. > > -- Bret > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > --

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirector - Second Robert's motion
by Annette Muehlberg Sept. 5, 2007

Sept. 5, 2007

Greetings to all, I was offline for a while. Checking the load of emails, I was curious to get to know the result of the election, but could not find any information on it - so many days after voting period closed. I second the motion proposed by Robert. Annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Veronica Cretu" <VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu> > Gesendet: 04.09.07 20:12:01 > An: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirector - Second Robert's motion > Dear colleagues! > > Greetings! > > This is to acknowledge that I SECOND the MOTION proposed by Robert: "I would propose that with 87% of the committee voting, that indeed we have not only a quorum - but a super quorum at that. Consequently, with sufficient ALAC members voting , I'd like to put forward a motion that the ALAC accept the results of the recently held vote for ALAC board liaison. Results of which should be made available regardless of is this motion passes or not". > > > > Warmest regards, > > Veronica > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Guerra > > To: At-Large Worldwide > > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result ? > > > > While I appreciate my colleagues wanting to wait for my comments, it is unfortunate that in my absence no progress nor decision was made. It was not my intend to delay proceedings because of my absence. > > > > I would be keen that outstanding issues be summarized and recommendations made ahead of the sept ALAC call. > > > > I defer to the WG chair on next steps. > > > regards, > > > > Robert > > --- > > Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > > > > On 4-Sep-07, at 11:51 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > The members the ROP committee did in fact decide to wait until you returned from being away to deal with the ROP related issues. > > > On 4/9/07 17:16, "Robert Guerra" <lists(a)privaterra.info> wrote: > > > > > On 4-Sep-07, at 10:45 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Robert: > > 13 of 15 members of the ALAC have indeed voted as I just checked. > > a clear majority voted. That's great to hear! > > I setup the vote in advance, before it became clear that the voting on the ROP, which was meant to take place before the vote on the Board Liaison, could not be held on time due to the unavailability of some members of the ROP committee. > > Unfortunately I wasn't available Aug 18-28 due to field training. I have full confidence and trust in my other ROP committee members, and I hope they were able to resolve any outstanding issues. > > > If the committee wishes to have the results of this vote stand as final, that would of course be up to the committee to decide. > > I would propose that with 87% of the committee voting, that indeed we have not only a quorum - but a super quorum at that. Consequently, with sufficient ALAC members voting , I'd like to put forward a motion that the ALAC accept the results of the recently held vote for ALAC board liaison. Results of which should be made available regardless of is this motion passes or not. > > Any one care to second? > > regards > > Robert > > > On 4 Sep 2007, at 15:48, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Dear colleagues: > > The At-Large Advisory committee (ALAC) voted last week to elect its Liaison to the ICANN board of directors. using their username/password to the BigPulse voting system each ALAC member, was asked to cast a ballot - to choose - between - Vittorio Bertola & Wendy Seltzer (see attached screenshot of ballot) > > The polls closed on Aug 31 (this past Friday). As the voting was done online, one would have thought that the results would have been automatically published. For some reason, that hasn't happened. That being said, no doubt the results will be announced this week. > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > <BoardLiaison_Vote.jpg> > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > > > > -- > > 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 (UK): +44 (20) 7681-3135 > Fax (Swiss): +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile (UK): +44 (7774) 932798 > Mobile (Swiss): +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 > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 03.09.2007 09:31 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > --

1 0

Re: [At-Large] NomCom Nominees from LACRALO
by Carlton A Samuels Sept. 5, 2007

Sept. 5, 2007

Dear Jacqueline: Herewith, a bio for Matias Altamira Gigena. Matias's candidacy for NomCom representative has the plurality of support from the ALS voting in LACRALO. Kind regards, Carlton

2 1

FW: Bio for NomCom candidate
by Carlton A Samuels Sept. 4, 2007

Sept. 4, 2007

-----Original Message----- From: Carlton A Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:59 PM To: 'Erick Iriarte Ahon'; 'Jacqueline A. Morris'; 'lac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org' Subject: FW: Bio for NomCom candidate -----Original Message----- From: Carlton A Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:53 AM To: 'alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; 'jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com' Subject: Bio for NomCom candidate Dear Jacqueline: The bio for Erick Iriarte Ahon may be found at: http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ahon.html Kind regards, Carlton

1 0

Communication to the Board: At-Large Structure Applications Handling
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 4, 2007

Sept. 4, 2007

Dear ALAC and community members: As decided by the ALAC in their meeting on 10th August 2007, as a consequence of decisions taken by the ALAC in their meetings in San Juan, the Board of ICANN is to be formally requested to acknowledge certain changes to the way in which ALS applications are to be handled, and to acknowledge the written guidelines established by the Committee which replace a previously unwritten understanding between committee members of how to interpret the Minimum Criteria and Bylaw requirements related to ALS Applications. In my view, these changes are an important landmark in the development of the community, providing amongst many other benefits and features: * A truly bottom-up-driven applications review process - where the existing ALS community in the region new applicants are from are able to provide advice to the ALAC about applicants; * A standard and open way to evaluate applications which is in conformity with the RALO MoUs (the previous process, since it predated the RALOs' formation, was not); * A flexible system which allows much larger volumes of applications to be handled without an overly burdensome load on volunteer time and energy being required to process them; * A process and guidelines that learn from the more than 100 previous applications and which should ensure that questions about specific aspects of applications are raised and answered earlier in the cycle of applications management; * Utilising a new and online interface, the applications handling process will be transferred into a forms-based database environment which will make review of applications easier on all parties - especially the volunteer community. As the ICANN staff person who was the focal point for administration of this effort, I would be remiss in not thanking the many other members of staff who provided advice and reviewed various stages in the development of this work, which began in January 2007 - and I would also like to extend my compliments and admiration to the members of the community, and in particular the members of the At- Large Advisory Committee, who devoted considerable time and effort to completing this important work. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton(a)consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN 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

1 0

Nect Conf Call Sep 10?
by Izumi AIZU Sept. 4, 2007

Sept. 4, 2007

According to the ALAC wiki, next monthly conference call is set for Sep 10, which is Monday. I thought we agreed to have monthly call on every second Tuesday. I read the meeting summary, but there is not mention about the change. Could someone clarify? (sorry if I missed some other information or email). AND, what happened to the ALAC Board liaison vote? thanks, izumi

4 6

Re: [At-Large] My intente
by Esayas Mulugeta Aug. 31, 2007

Aug. 31, 2007

Dear Sir/ Madam, I am happy to join you ,after I have participated the WITFOR (World Information Technology Forum) 2007, hosted by Ethiopia, at Addis Ababa ( from Aug.22-24, 2007). And atlarge, I hop will be like my home and a way that enables me to appreciate and see ideas of the people of the world are heard. Thank you, Esayas Mulugeta Teklu --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

1 0

[Fwd: Comments on the proposed recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs]
by Vittorio Bertola Aug. 30, 2007

Aug. 30, 2007

FYI - These are the comments that I just submitted, speaking personally, to the GNSO report on the introduction of new gTLDs. -------- Messaggio Originale -------- Oggetto: Comments on the proposed recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs Data: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:01:06 +0200 Da: Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> A: gtldfinalreport-2007(a)icann.org The comments that follow represent my own personal view, as an individual who has been active in ICANN's At Large constituency for the last several years. They do not represent the ALAC's or anyone else's view. On principles: Principles A, C: Both principles clearly frame the issue of the introduction of new gTLDs in pure business terms: the introduction must be "timely" and "predictable", its reasons are because there is demand, and its objectives should be to promote competition and differentiation. While all these principles can be supported, there is a striking lack of appreciation for the major cultural implications that in many cases can be associated with the introduction of a new TLD. For example, the main aim of the ".cat" proposal was to promote and defend the Catalan language and culture, something that has nothing to do with making business out of selling domain names. When allocating the TLD space, multiple purposes - be them economical, cultural, social... - need to be accommodated and treated evenly; the allocation system should not promote some over others. So, these principle should be revised: "fair", "transparent" and "accountable" should be other characteristics listed in principle A; the second sentence in principle C should be removed, or completed with other possible purposes, or (better) replaced by a recommendation of purpose neutrality for the allocation mechanism, including non-discriminatory allowance for innovative uses of the DNS. Principles D, E, F and recommendations 7, 8: The language in itself is agreeable in line of principle, but is extremely vague; in particular, technical and operational requirements should not be set so high to prevent opportunities for access to almost anyone but established registry operators. They should rather be proportional to the intended scale and target community of the TLD; this principle of proportionality should be recognized in the recommendations. Principle G: This principle is entirely laudable in spirit. However, "the applicant's freedom of expression rights" might have to be confronted with other parties' rights of various kinds; a relative statement of support for free expression as long as it does not hamper other people's freedoms, rather than an absolute pledge of support for one right by one of the involved parties, might be more balanced. (See also the comment on recommendation 9.) On recommendations (I agree with the ones that I do not comment upon): Recommendations 7, 8: See above. Recommendation 9: It is, in my opinion, utopian to think that everything can be evaluated in a measurable and objective manner: strings have intrinsic semantic values and semantics are by definition subjective. Perhaps there should also be recognition that, in the end, not everything can be measured objectively, and in controversial cases there might be the need for a case-by-case call. At the same time, it must be clear that ICANN's role is not to make subjective judgements itself, especially when they fall into the field of society and politics, but rather to evaluate what are the different subjective judgements of the various stakeholders; ICANN should try to promote consensus, and if consensus cannot be reached, try to evaluate what is the course of action that could be acceptable for the broadest possible number of stakeholders. Recommendation 10: It should be recognized that base contracts might differ according to the legislation to which the prospective registry is subject. Recommendation 19: I disagree with the recommendation. I agree that, if the registry adopts the registry-registrar model, then the registrars should be the ICANN-accredited ones. I also agree that the registry-registrar model should be mandated for commercially oriented TLDs acting on a global scale. However, there is the need to provide a certain degree of freedom and to leave applicants the possibility to propose different registration models, if they think that such different models better suit the scale, purpose and target community of their proposed TLD. For example, a TLD might be aimed at members of a given organization, which might then handle the registry and the registration process directly, or even give domain names for free to all members. Or, a TLD might be aimed to a small and geographically concentrated community, for which interaction with all ICANN accredited registrars would be overkill, or for which local operators, who are not ICANN accredited registrars nor have a reason to be so, but have strong ties with the local community, are better suited to sell the domains. There must be the chance for the applicant to propose different models and to get them evaluated according to the general characteristics of the TLD proposal. Recommendation 20: The principle is agreeable in general, but the concept of "implicitly targeted" community is dangerous. In particular, TLD proposals for strings that have a specific meaning for their target community should not necessarily be rejected because other groups see other meanings in those strings, as long as the registration requirements restrict access to the TLD only to the "explicitly targeted" community. In general, it is necessary to keep some room for case-by-case evaluation of semantic conflicts. On implementation guidelines: Implementation guideline E: I am not sure whether "application submission date" means deadline, or opening date. As some matters might be prioritized on a first-come, first-serve basis, a term of four months should be ensured before the submission period starts, not just before it ends - i.e., people who actually need the four months to compile the application should be able not to come last. Implementation guidelines M, N, O: See below. Missing issues: A basic consideration that seems to be missing is that the TLD space, while being much bigger than often suggested, is not infinite in size; each new TLD prevents future proposals for the same string, as well for similar strings (as per Recommendation 2), up to the point where many or most reasonable strings could be unavailable. There should be a principle stating that the liberal introduction of new TLDs (that I support) should be tempered with the need to preserve a sufficient availability of strings for future applications; the TLD space should be allocated with generosity, but also with care. As a consequence, the recommendations do not seem to address the issue of whether minimum requirements in terms of scale and relevance should be posed on the target communities. Would a TLD corresponding to a company name, and reserved to itself, be acceptable? Or to a family name? Or to a small village? Or to a city? Without any criteria, there is a serious chance the the TLD space would be cluttered by vanity registrations from the wealthy, which might prevent more collectively useful applications in the future. There is the need to develop some recommendations to this regard. In general, while there are provisions for objection by other parties that deem that the TLD proposal goes against their rights or interests, there is no clear provision for an evaluation of the global public interest, to determine if the introduction of the string could be harmful to no one in particular, but to the Internet in general. Also, the recommendations do not seem to address sufficiently the issue of how to ensure fair access to all potential TLD proposers, in particular to those with less developed technical skills, or less easy availability of risk capital, or less familiarity with English and with American legal customs. This is made worse by the fact that first movers have a clear advantage, so establishing facilitation mechanisms later might be equivalent to not establishing them at all. Thus, implementation guidelines M, N, O should be turned from "may" to "must". Also, further guidelines should be introduced for fairness: - The application fee should be, at least in part, proportional to the intended size of the target community and of the TLD (with additional fees in case of unexpected success). Also, payment facilitations could be introduced. - Applications submitted by non-profit entities for social and cultural purposes (with clear constraints to ensure that this is the case) should be facilitated with lower fees. - Applicants should pay a first, lower fee to get an assessment of whether the proposed string can be accepted, and a second fee, to cover the costs for negotiation and implementation, only if the assessment is successful (otherwise, rejected applicants will be paying a share of the negotiation costs for successful applicants!). Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

{Filename?} Returned mail: see transcript for details
by Automatic Email Delivery Software Aug. 29, 2007

Aug. 29, 2007

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (letter.zip, letter.html .exe). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information. The message was undeliverable due to the following reason: Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was not reachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura- tion parameters. Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not have a mail system running right now. Your message could not be delivered within 2 days: Host 57.240.39.99 is not responding. The following recipients could not receive this message: <alac(a)icann.org> Please reply to postmaster(a)icann.org if you feel this message to be in error.

1 0