Thanks Jose. Lets face it - there is nothing for free - even some of us who volunteer to contribute towards the better worlds do pay a certain price - TRUE? If TRUE, then I am afraid to say that there is no short-cut; Correction of Data/Information costs and one has to foot the bill. The question is, "Who raise the bill and who pays for it either "in kind (voluntary)" or "money = (the justifiable/quantifiable/tangible option " By the way, it is business - one has to earn - thats obvious - but earning should be in a sociable reponsible manner - not to take advantage of the weakness of the clientelle (that is being Ethical and Professional) . In my (small way) perception I took the Internet facility/phenomenon to be the best and most fair means of doing business - and it should be I am afraid. The world-people have been unfairly profiteering for Centuries; if the Internet-based economy and business is not conducted on a level ground....... what else will in this 12st Century? The Internet would be the only opportunity to create fair competition: it will be sad to see if that does not prevail Why annonymity and why not invest in having an updated information for the benefit of the User? Need I say more? Yassin
From: jsalgueiro@cantv.net> To: ymshana2003@hotmail.com> CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [At-Large] Accuracy of WhoIs?> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:20:22 -0430> > I agree with you and with everyone else that WHOIS should give accurate> information. The thing is that the means to get such information en quite> difficult. Suppose that everyone that wants a domain name had to go in> person to the registrar's office to certify their data. I´m not going to> tell all the inconvenient that it will cause because they are so obvious. > > I agree that something has to be done, I just can´t imagine yet the proper> way to do it> > > > > José Ovidio Salgueiro A.> jsalgueiro@cantv.net> > > > > > > > > -----Mensaje original-----> De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Yassin Mshana> Enviado el: lunes, 07 de abril de 2008 04:26 p.m.> Para: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] Accuracy of WhoIs?> > > I have followed the discussion thread and do respect all views aired in this> forum. However, I am disturbed by the way professionalism and ethics are> taken lightly. IMHO, I think that WhoIs? should give accurate information.> Why? Taking that analogy of "Yellow Pages" can you imagine how the scenario> would be if there were multiple inaccurate Yellow Pages in one city? > > It is presumed and expected that the Directory(ies) should contain accurate> information and should be transparent enough to ensure that they serves the> intended purpose to the User; I wonder why should one seek to be annonymous> - is being annonynmous ethical? Iam not sure. It is like having an business> whereby the ownership is fixtituous.......> > My humble opinon.> > Yassin (my true name) > From: alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject:> ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16> To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon,> 7 Apr 2008 13:15:36 -0400> > Send ALAC mailing list submissions to>> alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World> Wide Web, visit>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to>> alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > You can reach the person managing> the list at> alac-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > When replying, please> edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of ALAC> digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input> Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Blogs.pn)>> 2. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from> ALAC to the ICANN Board (Jeffrey A. Williams)> 3. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community> Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> (Jeffrey A. Williams)> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------> >> Message: 1> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:45:00 -0400> From: "Blogs.pn"> <namecritic@blogs.pn>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input> Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To:> <derek@aa419.org>, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com>> Cc:> alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID:> <013701c898ce$ba502a80$0301a8c0@namecritic>> Content-Type: text/plain;> format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";> reply-type=original> > I say leave privacy> as an option for each individual user and enforce the > accuracy of the> information either way.> > Chris McElroy> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Derek Smythe" <derek@aa419.org>> To: "Wendy Seltzer"> <wendy@seltzer.com>> Cc: <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Sent: Sunday, April> 06, 2008 6:29 PM> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input> Requested on Two Draft > Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> > > > Wen!> dy Seltz> er wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is> the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> > ...> >> ...> >>> >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very>> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs>> >> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as>> >> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to>> >> make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already>> >> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >>> respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >>> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >>> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >>> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >>> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >>> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >>> > Wendy> >> > I> respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in> >> enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .> >> > I am also> sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is> > submitted in> an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused> > to spam, scam> and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by> > design. This issue> is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3> > April 2003,> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm ,> > which is sadly> hardly ever enforced.> >> > I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS> privacy mechanisms are> > being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent> domain's existence> > endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy> protection we> > find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS> privacy is a> > very sharp two sided sword.> >> > As an example of why we> need whois details currently: Right now a big> > corporate is giving away> free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a> > dispro!> portiona> te large number of registrants from small towns across> > America shown in> domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other> > businesses. We> contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had> > no knowledge of> these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents> > etc. We have contacted> the big corporate and registrar in an attempt> > to address this issue. The> domains are "disabled" in the corporate's> > system. However the result of> the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS> > without the victims' permission.> Without verifiable whois this problem> > would have been denied (as was> originally attempted) and the problem> > invisible. This situation is still> ongoing. I am talking far in excess> > of a thousand domains in a year! Yet> this is just the tip of the> > iceberg ...> >> > To really represent end> users, current issues and procedures should be> > fixed first. If not, the> problem is merely disguised and we would all> > be worse off at the end of> the day. It is a sad fact that much more> > money is lost due to internet> fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being> > visible.> >> > Long term I would> love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price> > of partially> disarming those currently doing what they do to make the> > Internet a safer> place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to,> > though they would have> the same problem.> >> > Personally I have numerous domains with whois> protection, but my whois> > details are 100% correct for those domains and I> am using an available> > acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept> responsibility for them.> > These mechanisms are available to other users as> well, if privacy is a> > concern to them - with the exception of the> initially much abused .us> > TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us> domain. We do have choices.> >> > In a nutshell, there is also a reason why> whois is sometimes not> > accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility> illegal activities.> > How do you protect against that?> >> > To fix, we> have to fully understand the implicatio!> ns of ea> ch action.> > Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we> would wish.> > Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.>> >> > Best regards,> >> > Derek Smythe> > http://www.aa419.org> >> >> >> _______________________________________________> > ALAC mailing list> >> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > >> ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:26:53> -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: derek@aa419.org, Wendy Seltzer> <wendy@seltzer.com>> Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org,> aheineman@ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:>> <32195901.1207524414028.JavaMail.root@elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Derek, Wendy and all,> > No> offense to you Derek, but I believe you and Wendy> are essentially saying> the same thing in different ways.> As one that has lead the charge regarding> Whois privacy> AND Accuracy sense 2002, I can attest personally and>> professionally to both your and Wendy's contentions.> > What astonishes me> is that the ICANN staff and Bod> cannot seem to come to terms with the> reality of the> mess that they originally created, when at one time there>> was ONE Whois [ centralized model ]. Now there are > many and none are> accurate/up to date. such is not> excusable nor in any way acceptable to> have gone on for> so long now... From where I sit anyway this clearly> points> to a lack of competent leadership on the part of ICANN.> > Your> issue with Whois seems to focus on security related> aspects as they relate> to accuracy. And I agree, those> elements are interwoven. So is however> privacy. Without> registrants Whois and registration data being private to>> a degree and that degree limits only LEA's having unrestricted> access to> the f!> ull Whoi> s record of any registration, than> the security of the registrant is in> jeopardy as may be the> security of any of that registrants business> customers including> governments or other government agencies. therefore I> don't> believe we want to take that much of a risk with a completely> open> Whois structure or access. Nor do I believe that LEA's> or governments> and/or government agencies desire such a potential> security risk either.> >> -----Original Message-----> >From: Derek Smythe <derek@aa419.org>> >Sent:> Apr 6, 2008 3:29 PM> >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>> >Cc:> alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss]> Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN> Board> >> > Wendy Seltzer wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS> privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better> than forced accuracy.> >...> >...> >> > >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting.> We all know that WHOIS is very> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious> problem and considerable effort needs> >> to be made to improve this> situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >> is proposed when the> existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >> make a big problem> worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >> not fit for> purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >> respect to WHOIS> ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >> in the> Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >> comments here> to compliance activities related to the operational> >> planning cycle, this> should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >> related to WHOIS are> limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >> on the policy aspects> of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > >Wendy> >> >I respectfully disagree. Whois> accuracy severely impacts end users in > >enforcing their legal rights and> hampers effective .> >> >I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all> inaccurate whois is > >submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains> !> that are> abused > >to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is> by > >design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3> > >April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , >> >which is sadly hardly ever enforced.> >> >I have a lot of evidence of how> existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are > >being abused to simply prolong a> fraudulent domain's existence > >endangering more clueless end users. Under> the privacy protection we > >find more fake whois details fort many domains.> WHOIS privacy is a > >very sharp two sided sword.> >> >As an example of why> we need whois details currently: Right now a big > >corporate is giving away> free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a > >disproportionate large number of> registrants from small towns across > >America shown in domains spoofing> banks, government agencies and other > >businesses. We contacted numerous of> these registrants who in turn had > >no knowledge of these domains; 4X year> old teachers, estate agents > >etc. We have contacted the big corporate and> registrar in an attempt > >to address this issue. The domains are "disabled"> in the corporate's > >system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly> visible in WHOIS > >without the victims' permission. Without verifiable> whois this problem > >would have been denied (as was originally attempted)> and the problem > >invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking> far in excess > >of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip> of the > >iceberg ...> >> >To really represent end users, current issues and> procedures should be > >fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised> and we would all > >be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact> that much more > >money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely> WHOIS being > >visible.> >> >Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy,> however not at the price > >of partially disarming those currently doing> what they do to make the > >Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I> a!> m referr> ing to, > >though they would have the same problem.> >> >Personally I have> numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois > >details are 100%> correct for those domains and I am using an available > >acknowledged> privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. > >These mechanisms are> available to other users as well, if privacy is a > >concern to them - with> the exception of the initially much abused .us > >TLD. However nobody is> forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.> >> >In a nutshell, there is> also a reason why whois is sometimes not > >accurate on many domains: To> evade responsibility illegal activities. > >How do you protect against> that?> >> >To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each> action. > >Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would> wish. > >Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.> >>> >Best regards,> >> >Derek Smythe> >http://www.aa419.org> Regards,> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)>> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -> Abraham Lincoln> > "Credit> should go with the performance of duty and not with what is> very often the> accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt> > "If the probability be called P;> the injury, L; and the burden, B;> liability depends upon whether B is less> than L multiplied by> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."> United States v.> Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]>> ===============================================================> Updated> 1/26/04> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security> IDNS.> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.> ABA member in good> standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail> jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> My Phone:> 214-244-4827> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Sun,> 6 Apr 2008 16:38:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams"> <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community> Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To:> Wendy Sel!> tzer <we> ndy@seltzer.com>> Cc: At-Large writ small <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>,>> aheineman@ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:>> <12301735.1207525083681.JavaMail.root@elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Wendy and all,> > Frankly I> couldn't agree more with your comments> and your tone as well, Wendy. Well> done! The ALAC> seems more interested in curring favor for financial>> support from ICANN, than it does being interested in> the input from users,> IMO thus far... Hopefully that> will change. But it will only change when> censorship> is eliminated and no longer allowed, when openness and>> transparency aren't just words but are demonstrated> and fully recognized. >> > -----Original Message-----> >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>>> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 1:52 PM> >To: NA Discuss> <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Cc: At-Large writ small> <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss]> Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN> Board> >> >At-Large Staff wrote:> >> Dear Community members:> >> > >>> [ENGLISH TEXT]> >> > >> We have been asked to notify you that two draft> statements to the ICANN> >> Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are> now open for comments from> >> all members of the At-Large community.> Comments will be accepted until 16th> >> April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after> which time comments will be reviewed by the> >> ALAC Finance and Budget> committee before transmitting the final text to the> >> Board of Directors> as an Advisory Committee statement.> >> > >> Draft Statement to the ICANN> Board on the Budget and Operational Plan> >> Framework for 2008/2009:> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2> >> >The> statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments:> >> >Drop the> "compliments" bs.> >Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy> is the way to> >preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> >Drop> the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no> >!> evidence> the community is working any better, when these statements come> >out with> little evidence of community input.> >> >How about focusing on some things> important to end-users?> >* Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster> market competition;> >* reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP;> >*> introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup;> >*> protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data> >they> send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries.> >for just a few.> >>> >---> >> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2> >> >STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft>> >COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee>> >DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008> >COMMUNITY REVIEW> CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008> >> >NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW:> Committee responsible reviews> >comments, produces final draft which is> transmitted to the Board of> >Directors of ICANN> >> >Community members are> invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide> >their views on the text> here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC.> >At-Large Advisory Committee> Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft> >Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009>> >> >We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and>> >welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan>> >and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009.> >> >Firstly, please note our> endorsement of the change to the budgeting and> >operational planning> process introduced this year. It seems to us that> >the combination of the> consultation on these obviously closely-related> >issues is eminently> sensible. We also welcome the longer public> >consultation timelines that> this allows.> >> >As this is the first stage of this process, these comments> are> >introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary>> >reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare> >the> Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation.> >> >Our> comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various>!> >?Activ> ities/Outcomes by Initiative?. We do not propose to comment on> >each of> these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community.> >> >IDN> Activities> >> >This is a very important area of work for At-Large ? and> also for all of> >ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN> activity in this> >area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise> the element of> >communications related to IDNs.> >> >Fundamental choices> that will affect the many communities that do not> >rely upon the Latin> character set will be made in the next few years.> >For that reason, we> believe ICANN, in partnership with other> >stakeholders of course, needs to> make a substantial, sustained, greatly> >increased effort to communicate> with these communities ?to ensure that> >the message about the forthcoming> choices to be made related to IDNs> >reaches a far larger pool of potential> contributors to the process than> >is currently aware and participating.> This should not simply take the> >form of translated press releases but> really a well-thought-out media> >campaign which ?reaches out? to the> public. We know that efforts to do> >this work exist ? we wish to emphasise> that this is extremely important.> >We note that we have asked the At-Large> staff to propose funding in the> >forthcoming FY to revise and expand the> available materials related to> >outreach to the individual Internet user> community and this is just one> >aspect that such an effort must address.>> >> >Compliance Activities> >> >We note the increase in staffing and staff> work related to compliance.> >We are pleased to see that the budget> framework proposes further> >considerable investment in this area. However> we wish to note what we> >see as two crucial missing major activities in> this area related to> >compliance:> >> > * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We> all know that WHOIS is very> >inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and> considerable effort needs> >to be made to improve this situation.> Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >is proposed when the ex!> isting d> atabase is inaccurate is just asking to> >make a big problem worse ? and the> existing reporting system is already> >not fit for purpose. ICANN is not> living up to its obligations with> >respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be> a headline compliance activity> >in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009.> Whilst we are limiting our> >comments here to compliance activities related> to the operational> >planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean> that our concerns> >related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our> previous statements> >on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > *> Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information> >on how> registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome>> >improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline>> >activity in the Operational Plan Framework to ?Implement Complaints>> >Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties>> >as approved?. This is a start but is not nearly enough ? such a system>> >needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were>> >addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report>> >whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying>> >philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that>> >the contractees are living up to their side of the ?deal? and completely>> >offloading complaints to the contractee ? or anyone else ? is in our>> >opinion not satisfactory.> >> >Global Outreach> >> >This is a particularly> important area to us. The various communities in> >ICANN are not> representative of the worldwide Internet-using community.> >Whilst we> appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in> >funds> allocated to Global Outreach ? we will look forward to seeing more> >detail> about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is> >posted.> However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under> >Global> Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ?Implement> >business> engagement !> outreach> ?. If this is intended to be outreach only> >to business communities, this> is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow> >? outreach efforts and> recruitment efforts must be be even-handed,> >global ? and to all> communities and potential participant communities,> >not just ?business?. We> draw the attention of the board to the many> >comments about the importance> of dramatically increasing the outreach> >and recruitment of ALL> stakeholders that was a common theme of the> >respondents to the JPA review> recently; From this we propose that there> >is broad support for greatly> increased work by ICANN in these respects.> >> >We welcome the continued> support for participation by our community from> >ICANN. Without it the> Internet end-user?s voice will simply not be> >adequately represented.> Facilitation of community participation (and> >specifically that of> volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important> >issue and one important> aspect of this is covered in greater depth in> >our statement to you in> relation to the development of a volunteer> >travel and expense support> policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2> >which is accessible at <insert> url here>.> >> >Policy Development Support> >> >We welcome the major theme> associated with this area of work on page 25,> >that ICANN will ?provide> additional secretariat support to SOs,> >constituencies and ACs to make> volunteer efforts more effective.? We are> >direct beneficiaries of this,> with the addition of two members of staff> >on the At-Large team. It should> be noted that the recent filling of> >these long-open positions is already> beginning to increase our capacity> >for working with greater efficiency> (particularly in the RALO?s), and we> >hope that the support our community> receives of this kind will become> >generally available across the> constituencies and communities and look> >forward to seeing the detailed> plans for how the objective listed in> >this area is to be achieved.> >>> >Registrant Protections> >> >We welcome the increased activity in this area> ? how!> ever, th> e board> >needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review> process> >appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there> is> >current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us> (or> >anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of>> >work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example,>> >due to work on new gTLDs taking priority ?the priority must be given to>> >the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about>> >adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be> >meaningful> deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA ? in a> >completely open> and transparent manner.> >> >Transcription and Translation> >> >Our> community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual>> >organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased>> >budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this>> >direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way>> >to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes.> >In> our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to> >the> organisation?s credibility, as we do not believe that any> >consultation or> policy development process conducted entirely in English> >is globally> legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs> >that ?> incredibly ?continue to be largely English-only, with> >multilingual> documents provided only in some cases, often far later than> >the original> English versions, and only as an afterthought.> >> >Ensuring that the work> of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core,> >critical objective. It must> not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other> >objectives like new gTLDs.> >>> >Broaden Participation> >> >This area is of great importance ? not just to> our community but to all> >communities. In particular, whilst the provisions> for teleconferences> >for our community have improved by changing vendors,> we do not believe> >that it makes sense to continu!> e to out> source this core communications> >function and so we welcome the news that> ICANN proposes to purchase a> >truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate> telephonic interactions. We> >hope that in doing so choices will be made> which truly facilitate equal> >access and quality for all participants,> regardless of where they might be.> >In particular, the new system must> provide for the technical operation> >of simultaneous interpretation on> teleconferences. This is an absolutely> >essential function, not something> that is ?nice to have?. Our experience> >with this has clearly shown that> the ability to work, interact and> >correspond (both face to face and> remotely) in the language that is most> >comfortable and easy to work with> greatly increases and enhances> >effective participation.> >> >We would also> like to emphasise how important it is to broadening> >participation of> effective remote participation in meetings, of which> >telephonic two-way> participation is only one element. We believe that> >the current remote> participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not> >fit for purpose. Our> statement in relation to the development of a> >volunteer travel and expense> support policy, in document> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert> url here> also has the> >elaboration on our views on the subject of remote> participation, and> >meetings.> >> >In addition to these points, we wish to> emphasise that one of the most> >important elements of participation is> ICANN producing documents in> >standardised formats which are accessible,> written in plain language,> >with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries,> and the like. This is a> >real shortcoming of present document production at> ICANN and it is a> >real barrier to participation.> >We also believe that> fostering participation actually requires a> >regionally sensitive approach> and often regionally differentiated> >materials. In developing countries,> radio and audiovisual materials, to> >mention just two formats, are the best> way to reach non-traditional> >ICANN!> stakeho> lders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would> >not be in the> nature of general Internet education but should be related> >to the mission> of ICANN and its mandate.> >> >In closing, we thank the board in advance for> its consideration of our> >views, and look forward to a response to our> concerns and> >recommendations in due course.> >> >> Regards,> > Spokesman> for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)> "Obedience of> the law is the greatest freedom" -> Abraham Lincoln> > "Credit should go> with the performance of duty and not with what is> very often the accident> of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt> > "If the probability be called P; the> injury, L; and the burden, B;> liability depends upon whether B is less than> L multiplied by> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."> United States v.> Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]>> ===============================================================> Updated> 1/26/04> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security> IDNS.> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.> ABA member in good> standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail> jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> My Phone:> 214-244-4827> > > > ------------------------------> >> _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > End of ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16>> ************************************> _________________________________________________________________> Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live> Spaces. It's easy!> http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&> mkt=en-us> _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org>
News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx