Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
I took another whack. Other than fixing lots of typos, main changes are: - beginning clarifies that this is from the RAA WG - added the beneficiary language bullet from Bret - removed transfer timeout language, since it already does that - added a few words to acknowledge things ICANN already (at least in theory) does I didn't reinstate the WHOIS privacy stuff since I saw only one comment asking for it. But the section on resellers does say that registrars should have contracts that pass through all registrant responsibilities, which covers the most important point, I think. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
John, Thanks for the whack. In reviewing my notes, I also spotted an interesting recommendation from Randy Glass, namely "to add, there should be a 3rd party representative, like an ombudsman within ICANN that could handle a registrant's inter-registrar problems." The notion of a registrant liaison with adjudicating powers is a good one. Perhaps this could be put forward as a recommendation. --- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I took another whack. Other than fixing lots of typos, main changes are:
- beginning clarifies that this is from the RAA WG
- added the beneficiary language bullet from Bret
- removed transfer timeout language, since it already does that
- added a few words to acknowledge things ICANN already (at least in theory) does
I didn't reinstate the WHOIS privacy stuff since I saw only one comment asking for it. But the section on resellers does say that registrars should have contracts that pass through all registrant responsibilities, which covers the most important point, I think.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.>
RAA-WG mailing list RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.o...
RAA WG Online:
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations
____________________________________________________________________________________ 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
Glass, namely "to add, there should be a 3rd party representative, like an ombudsman within ICANN that could handle a registrant's inter-registrar problems."
The notion of a registrant liaison with adjudicating powers is a good one. Perhaps this could be put forward as a recommendation.
Given our experience with ICANN's current Ombudsman, I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the idea. Although the Ombudsman is nominally independent, in practice he has consistently acted to defend ICANN's staff against all comers, including spending quite a while explaining testily to numerous complainants why it wasn't ICANN's job to do anything about Registerfly's failure to perform. Perhaps someone else would be different, but this guy has a sterling pre-ICANN resume, and I don't see why anyone else who knew that his reappointment depended on formal or informal staff recommendations would act differently. R's, John
John L ha scritto:
I didn't reinstate the WHOIS privacy stuff since I saw only one comment asking for it. But the section on resellers does say that registrars should have contracts that pass through all registrant responsibilities, which covers the most important point, I think.
The main point (second bullet in draft 2) was that registrars who violate whatever privacy laws or policies might exist (without entering into what they should be, since on that we disagree) should be sanctioned and, in serious cases, deaccredited, exactly as when they violate whatever laws or policies require them to disclose certain information (again, without entering into what they should be). In other words, enforcement should work in both directions; not only for the policies that require disclosure, but also for the policies that require privacy. To me it seems quite an obvious and non-controversial point, so could you just reinstate it? In any case, the original Whois section was agreed text - no one had asked to remove it in the round of comments to draft 2, not even you. So I do not understand why we have to reopen the entire discussion once again - we just needed to incorporate comments to draft 2 into a final draft. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
If other people think it's important to put it back in, I'll put it back in. I didn't object, but I don't think it's an important point, either. I actively oppose any language that tells ICANN to enforce privacy laws. That's the job of governments, not of ICANN. ICANN: "We're sanctioning you for violating law X." Registrar: "We didn't violate law X, and besides, it doesn't apply to us." Then what? More lawsuits? R's, John
John L ha scritto:
I didn't reinstate the WHOIS privacy stuff since I saw only one comment asking for it. But the section on resellers does say that registrars should have contracts that pass through all registrant responsibilities, which covers the most important point, I think.
The main point (second bullet in draft 2) was that registrars who violate whatever privacy laws or policies might exist (without entering into what they should be, since on that we disagree) should be sanctioned and, in serious cases, deaccredited, exactly as when they violate whatever laws or policies require them to disclose certain information (again, without entering into what they should be). In other words, enforcement should work in both directions; not only for the policies that require disclosure, but also for the policies that require privacy. To me it seems quite an obvious and non-controversial point, so could you just reinstate it?
In any case, the original Whois section was agreed text - no one had asked to remove it in the round of comments to draft 2, not even you. So I do not understand why we have to reopen the entire discussion once again - we just needed to incorporate comments to draft 2 into a final draft.
John L ha scritto:
If other people think it's important to put it back in, I'll put it back in.
That's not how we have proceed until now. Each single comment has been incorporated unless it conflicted with something else (in which case we should discuss the matter until we reach agreement) or was too generic to be usable. I suggest we stick to that principle.
I didn't object, but I don't think it's an important point, either. I actively oppose any language that tells ICANN to enforce privacy laws. That's the job of governments, not of ICANN.
ICANN: "We're sanctioning you for violating law X."
Registrar: "We didn't violate law X, and besides, it doesn't apply to us."
Actually, we are not talking just about laws, but about whatever privacy policy ICANN might have. And even for laws, it would work the opposite way: once a registrar is sanctioned by a court or by the applicable privacy authority, ICANN could use that, if necessary, to deaccredit the registrar or apply some intermediate sanction, which is what one would expect if a registrar started to misuse in a severe manner the information it gathers from registrations. If the new ALAC position is that breaches to privacy rights of the registrants are irrelevant and should not be contrasted by ICANN, I would like that to be said clearly. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I didn't object, but I don't think it's an important point, either. I actively oppose any language that tells ICANN to enforce privacy laws. That's the job of governments, not of ICANN.
ICANN: "We're sanctioning you for violating law X."
Registrar: "We didn't violate law X, and besides, it doesn't apply to us."
Actually, we are not talking just about laws, but about whatever privacy policy ICANN might have.
That's fine, but I am still completely opposed to anything that suggests that it's ICANN's job to enforce the law.
If the new ALAC position is that breaches to privacy rights of the registrants are irrelevant and should not be contrasted by ICANN, I would like that to be said clearly.
My position is since about 99.99% of at-large users have never registered a domain and never will, their interest should be most important to us. R's, John
Given the approximately zero amount of time remaining to us, I suggest that we ship a document listing the points on which there is no disagreemnt. In the other areas, if we don't have consensus now, we're not going to have consensus tomorrow, either. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Vittorio, Sorry, but privacy is not a universally held "right" under law. Privacy laws exist is some jurisdictions, but not in others. In the United States we have case law (Peterson v. NTIA) that argues that the use of privacy/proxy services results in harm to the public interest by leaving the public without "easy redress" in areas pertaining to fraud and infringement -- accordingly, such services are now outlawed in the .us namespace. Let's be clear about something... if you as a registrant seek to protect what you believe to be a privacy right, you have many options: (1) You can register in an appropriate ccTLD (2) You can communicate anonymously at the third level (3) You can take advantage of a P.O.Box and/or an answering service phone number (4) You can utilize a proxy service (5) You can also file a lawsuit if you believe that your rights are being denied or abused. Thus far, I haven't seen any registrant privacy lawsuits directed at either ICANN or its registrars that have prevailed, which leads me to believe that the privacy argument is not as strong or as meritorious as you would have us believe. Frankly, what we have now is a broad set of choices for registrants. I see no value in reducing this set of choices by attempting to mandate a privacy regime in the gTLD world while law enforcement interests, commercial interests, trademark interests and governmental interests remain opposed to this proposition. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Vittorio,
Sorry, but privacy is not a universally held "right" under law.
Did you ever read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Article 12 in particular. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Re: Did you ever read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Article 12 in particular. That's the Article that refers to "arbitrary interference". There is nothing arbitrary about ICANN WHOIS policy. By definition (drawn from wikipedia): Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula. Vittorio, please accept the fact that there is no consensus on this topic and that the lack of consensus means that either (1) no recommendation will be forthcoming or (2) that all divergent views will be presented -- neither of which will necessarily help ICANN or the registrars with their planned revisions to the RAA. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
Sorry, but privacy is not a universally held "right" under law.
Did you ever read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Article 12 in particular.
Yes. I don't understand why people don't think it applies to non-registrants who have to deal with phishes and other identity theft and privacy violations, but don't happen to have registered domains of their own. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Just a question. Am I the only one to whom it sounds weird that you can register in privacy-friendly mode in a ccTLD, but not with a Registrar in the same country? To the best of my knowledge, a ccTLD is allowed to do that because it is recognized that it is subject to the jurisdiction of its own country. However, the registrar does also, in exactly the same way. Elaborating further, what would be the situation of a gTLD registry located in a country protecting privacy, and its registrars located in countries who don't? Just food for thought. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 16 September 2007 18:42e To: Vittorio Bertola; John L Cc: RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
Vittorio,
Sorry, but privacy is not a universally held "right" under law. Privacy laws exist is some jurisdictions, but not in others. In the United States we have case law (Peterson v. NTIA) that argues that the use of privacy/proxy services results in harm to the public interest by leaving the public without "easy redress" in areas pertaining to fraud and infringement -- accordingly, such services are now outlawed in the .us namespace.
Let's be clear about something... if you as a registrant seek to protect what you believe to be a privacy right, you have many options:
(1) You can register in an appropriate ccTLD (2) You can communicate anonymously at the third level (3) You can take advantage of a P.O.Box and/or an answering service phone number (4) You can utilize a proxy service (5) You can also file a lawsuit if you believe that your rights are being denied or abused. Thus far, I haven't seen any registrant privacy lawsuits directed at either ICANN or its registrars that have prevailed, which leads me to believe that the privacy argument is not as strong or as meritorious as you would have us believe.
Frankly, what we have now is a broad set of choices for registrants. I see no value in reducing this set of choices by attempting to mandate a privacy regime in the gTLD world while law enforcement interests, commercial interests, trademark interests and governmental interests remain opposed to this proposition.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Just a question. Am I the only one to whom it sounds weird that you can register in privacy-friendly mode in a ccTLD, but not with a Registrar in the same country? To the best of my knowledge, a ccTLD is allowed to do that because it is recognized that it is subject to the jurisdiction of its own country. However, the registrar does also, in exactly the same way. Elaborating further, what would be the situation of a gTLD registry located in a country protecting privacy, and its registrars located in countries who don't?
Just food for thought.
Cheers, Roberto
Roberto We've had this question posed to us more than once. Some people consider it their inalienable right to be able to not display certain information in WHOIS and have accused us of breaking the law since the ICANN registrar we use follows the norm. Of course the counter-argument is that they could register a .eu, but the economic reality is that .com is considered to be the "be all and end all" Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.ie/ http://blog.blacknight.ie/ Tel. 1850 929 929 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele, Thanks for the explanation, but it is not an answer to my question. I am not arguing at all about who is right and who is wrong, and/or who consider what is his/her right. I am only asking what is the difference, legally, in allowing a different regime to a ccTLD, and allowing a different regime to a registrar located in the country of the same ccTLD. The question is: "What is the legal jurisdiction in either case, and if it is different, why?". Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.ie] Sent: 18 September 2007 01:34 To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: 'Danny Younger'; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'John L'; RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Just a question. Am I the only one to whom it sounds weird that you can register in privacy-friendly mode in a ccTLD, but not with a Registrar in the same country? To the best of my knowledge, a ccTLD is allowed to do that because it is recognized that it is subject to the jurisdiction of its own country. However, the registrar does also, in exactly the same way. Elaborating further, what would be the situation of a gTLD registry located in a country protecting privacy, and its registrars located in countries who don't?
Just food for thought.
Cheers, Roberto
Roberto
We've had this question posed to us more than once. Some people consider it their inalienable right to be able to not display certain information in WHOIS and have accused us of breaking the law since the ICANN registrar we use follows the norm.
Of course the counter-argument is that they could register a .eu, but the economic reality is that .com is considered to be the "be all and end all"
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.ie/ http://blog.blacknight.ie/ Tel. 1850 929 929 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Roberto, At the end of July, your fellow Board member Vanda Scartezini posted the following comment on the ALAC Working Wiki: "I am not seeing topics related to IGF as part of ALAC work, though I probably am not looking at the right place. Considering IGF has already an agenda and this agenda has a lot of issues: Critical Resources; Access; diversity; openness; development/capacity building; security and the way they may be presented as far as I know, may be not aligned with general ICANN's interest, I would like to see more clearly how ALAC is dealing with those themes, which are the role/ participation of ALAC at IGF, how the community can contribute with ALAC re these topics." -- https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_top_10_issues What you have posed is a jurisdictional question pertaining to the management of Critical Resources that could readily constitute a workshop topic at the upcoming IGF. Do you still believe that for ICANN to expend money and staff to participate in the IGF efforts is ultra vires (as you earlier stated on the GA list when you signalled your agreement with Karl's position), or has your position shifted to the degree that you might now tend to side with Vanda on this matter? I ask this question because the juridictional conundrum is at the heart of the WHOIS debate and the ICANN community could surely benefit from the type of wide-reaching discussion on the matter that the IGF could supply. In your view, will ICANN take the initiative and raise this topic at the IGF? regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Michele,
Thanks for the explanation, but it is not an answer to my question. I am not arguing at all about who is right and who is wrong, and/or who consider what is his/her right. I am only asking what is the difference, legally, in allowing a different regime to a ccTLD, and allowing a different regime to a registrar located in the country of the same ccTLD. The question is: "What is the legal jurisdiction in either case, and if it is different, why?".
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
My original question:
"What is the legal jurisdiction in either case, and if it is different, why?".
Danny's reply:
What you have posed is a jurisdictional question pertaining to the management of Critical Resources that could readily constitute a workshop topic at the upcoming IGF.
Wow! Cheers, Roberto P.S.: Your sentence:
Do you still believe that for ICANN to expend money and staff to participate in the IGF efforts is ultra vires (as you earlier stated on the GA list when you signalled your agreement with Karl's position), or has your position shifted to the degree that you might now tend to side with Vanda on this matter?
seems to imply that at some point in time I have stated that ICANN should not participate in the IGF. Since I don't remember having stated that, would you mind pointing me to the exact reference? Thanks.
I can't help but note that by my count 13 out of 15 ALAC members have said nothing about the RAA comments. I really don't feel comfortable sending something that says ALAC which only two of the members have looked at. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Doesn't it fall to Jacqueline to send on behalf of ALAC? Why don't you send the latest draft to her, as she may have a better sense of where the ALAC members stand on acceptance of the draft. Bret On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:15 AM, John L wrote
I really don't feel comfortable sending something that says ALAC which only two of the members have looked at.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- Bret Fausett bfausett@internet.law.pro skype:lextext | iChat:bret@mac.com (smime.p7s is a digital signature) ----------------------------------
... so the ALAC is useless and apparently doesn't really give a damn about protections for registrants -- no new revelations there... At this point, just strike all remaining references to the ALAC and send in the document as a public contribution. regards, Danny P.S. ICANN closed the RAA Revisions Public Forum yesterday anyway. --- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I can't help but note that by my count 13 out of 15 ALAC members have said nothing about the RAA comments.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Or, perhaps, from the NA RALO? Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:25 PM To: John L; RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] No fifth possibly final draft of RAAcomments ... so the ALAC is useless and apparently doesn't really give a damn about protections for registrants -- no new revelations there... At this point, just strike all remaining references to the ALAC and send in the document as a public contribution. regards, Danny P.S. ICANN closed the RAA Revisions Public Forum yesterday anyway. --- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I can't help but note that by my count 13 out of 15 ALAC members have said nothing about the RAA comments.
________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
In my opinion NA RALO should put something in, in fact it seems that most if not all of those commenting are from NA. Bret as regional Chair, would make the call if there's consensus suppose. Might I suggest a contribution go in by end of day today. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 18-Sep-07, at 1:30 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Or, perhaps, from the NA RALO?
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:25 PM To: John L; RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] No fifth possibly final draft of RAAcomments
... so the ALAC is useless and apparently doesn't really give a damn about protections for registrants -- no new revelations there...
At this point, just strike all remaining references to the ALAC and send in the document as a public contribution.
regards, Danny
P.S. ICANN closed the RAA Revisions Public Forum yesterday anyway.
--- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I can't help but note that by my count 13 out of 15 ALAC members have said nothing about the RAA comments.
______________________________________________________________________ __ ____________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Robert Guerra ha scritto:
In my opinion NA RALO should put something in, in fact it seems that most if not all of those commenting are from NA.
Not all from NARALO though (several GA folks). And I'm still the material author of 90% of the text :) But it could go in as a contribution of the RAA working group of the At Large, that would be the most appropriate thing to do given the situation. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I agree that this must be submitted on behalf of something. If not, let's not continue this journey of useless working groups. Most of us have things to do. Thanks, Randy Glass A@L On 9/18/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Or, perhaps, from the NA RALO?
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:25 PM To: John L; RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] No fifth possibly final draft of RAAcomments
... so the ALAC is useless and apparently doesn't really give a damn about protections for registrants -- no new revelations there...
At this point, just strike all remaining references to the ALAC and send in the document as a public contribution.
regards, Danny
P.S. ICANN closed the RAA Revisions Public Forum yesterday anyway.
--- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I can't help but note that by my count 13 out of 15 ALAC members have said nothing about the RAA comments.
________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Since the working groups exist to allow the regions to collaborate on At-Large-Wide statements on policy, the group itself, it seems to me, can certainly send the text in on behalf of the At-Large Community. ALAC, as an Advisory Committee to the Board, could separately send it to the Board to reinforce the position if it chooses to do so. On the wider note, perhaps the Secretariats and the ALAC may wish to discuss whether or not the ALAC needs to review the results of Working Groups. They are, after all, a bottom-up reflection of all regions; the RAA revisions have been widely circulated to the community for comments and the working groups are intended to be representative of all regions. Perhaps it may be thought more useful by the community for the ALAC to transmit working group results to the board in its role as an Advisory Committee if it wishes, but that the committee does not actually need to review the results of working groups in order for them to be taken forward to the community as the view of the At-Large community. I hope nobody will get demotivated by the current situation. The working group has worked hard to produce a thoughtful and comprehensive statement on the subject which is the purpose of having it in the first place, so it worked :) Whether or not a separate body does or doesn't endorse its work takes nothing away from the work itself, or those who generated it. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Office Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 Office Fax: +41 (22) 594 8544 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ----- Original message ----- From: "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org, RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:39:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] No fifth possibly final draft of RAAcomments I agree that this must be submitted on behalf of something. If not, let's not continue this journey of useless working groups. Most of us have things to do. Thanks, Randy Glass A@L On 9/18/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Or, perhaps, from the NA RALO?
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:25 PM To: John L; RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] No fifth possibly final draft of RAAcomments
... so the ALAC is useless and apparently doesn't really give a damn about protections for registrants -- no new revelations there...
At this point, just strike all remaining references to the ALAC and send in the document as a public contribution.
regards, Danny
P.S. ICANN closed the RAA Revisions Public Forum yesterday anyway.
--- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I can't help but note that by my count 13 out of 15 ALAC members have said nothing about the RAA comments.
________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
I don't know whether the ALAC, as the ALAC, will submit anything, but please feel free to submit comments to ICANN yourselves, on your own behalf or on behalf of your ALS organization, by sending an email to raa-consultation@icann.org. You might copy the text of the draft John and Vittorio prepare and then say something like, "The comments below were developed on the At Large Advisory Committee mailing lists and are supported by [name of your ALS]." -- Bret Fausett bfausett@internet.law.pro skype:lextext | iChat:bret@mac.com (smime.p7s is a digital signature) ----------------------------------
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
I don't know whether the ALAC, as the ALAC, will submit anything, but please feel free to submit comments to ICANN yourselves, on your own behalf or on behalf of your ALS organization, by sending an email to raa-consultation@icann.org. You might copy the text of the draft John and Vittorio prepare and then say something like, "The comments below were developed on the At Large Advisory Committee mailing lists and are supported by [name of your ALS]."
I would like to know whether the ALAC does or does not plan to submit the comment as a Committee - first, because this might come up in Board discussions, and second, because then I might be submitting the text in individual capacity. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
At a meeting last night between myself (in my capacity as APRALO REP to the ALAC & therefore as an ALAC Member) and the APRALO secretariat, the issue of submission of outcomes from this ALAC Mailing List as well as the 'measurement' of activity and contributions to these activities was discussed at considerable length... From an initial APRALO perspective (and it will be on our Agenda for wider community discussion at our Monthly APRALO Teleconf next week as well), it appears that aspects of assumptions made and 'errors in interpretation' and understanding of both purpose and mechanisms of list activity here have occurred from our perspective... These will not be remedied now, nor is any retrospective action being called for or suggested... *BUT* we will be calling for a clarification of process, purpose and activity contribution measures and metrics to be used, for all the ALAC mailing lists outreach activities and Working Groups... Why?? You might ask well... I was under the impression that this and other WG Lists of the ALAC (and the APRALO was therefore informed) that activities here were a way of ALS RALO and wider community interest (if that exists) to contribute to discussion and reach where possible a consensus view to go to the Board from the ALAC and At Large further that Vittorio (on behalf of ALAC) had taken the lead in much of the drafting of original documentation for discussion points to be developed from.... Naturally that still means that individual and organisational output from this list or influenced by this list activities should happen AND be encouraged and the suggestion Bret made below is encouraged and we will also discuss this at our APRALO... Not only am I (yes and ALAC member!!) been on and reading the list activities (and had no issues to raise or dissent to contribute that was not being discussed by other non ALAC voices here) but APRALO also had a lead representative allocated to be on this list form our relevant WG and if he had seen an issue with or counterpoint to points raised or discussion had he would have contributed that on our behalf... Lack or list noise or postings from sectors of our community, does not in all cultures mean complacency it can mean compliance or agreement in principle... You might be interested to note here for example that APRALO motions and proposals are put up at our meetings placed out on the WIKI or List for comment and in the ABSENCE of any Comment or supported suggestions Edit or Alteration go ahead as passed by consensus from those accessing the site and the list(s) when a deadline time and date for final discussion has passed... SO some of us work in a system where differences of opinion and direction are discussed but agreement is not seen as requiring comment or list affirmation. Vittorio, I had and I suspect others of us (particularly us newbie's) on the ALAC had expected that list activities would contribute to if not formulate the final ALAC response at this stage on this topic... And with the advise that John was doing a final Draft I again assumed that was to be utilisable by the ALAC. This misinterpretation on my part will be raised as an example of a communication and process / expectations mismatch issue in the ALAC workshop on Sunday Oct 28th. Clearly others and those actively involved in the discussion and drafting processes here were NOT of the same opinion... APRALO will be asking that this outreach activity and contributory list activities undertaking by ALAC in the future have clearer and jointly understood and agreed on objectives and outcomes... We will ask for this to be discussed in LA in some of the ALAC's formal sessions, but my personal hope is that texts of such value as this could be strengthened by the list subscribers and the organisations they represent being listed and forwarded IN ADDITION to the suggestion below and to any official transcript from this lists activities under whatever 'authorship' the majority decided on... And indeed that such a version go as suggested earlier by Nick I think to the Chairman of the Board as reflected by the position of ALAC with the Board... As an aside regarding the privacy rights issues discussed earlier, those of you with interest in this area may wish to note that Australia is currently undertaking two relevant reviews -> Review of Australian Privacy law (http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2007/mr1207_privacy.html ) and specifically re the IP and trade Marks arena -> Development of the Madrid System - Request for Comment on the Future of the Madrid Protocol http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/news/Developement%20of%20the%20Madrid%20S ystem%20-%20Request%20for%20Comment%20on%20the%20Future%20of%20the%20Madrid% 20Protocol%20September%202007.pdf Finally may I (now I have taken up your valuable time in reading this missive) also mention my personal and the ISOC-AU (as an ALS)'s support for the less litigious approach to disputes referred to by Danny as we (and me as a Demand Class Director of auDA and a public interest rep who contributed to the development of these policies), are very satisfied with the results and outcomes of these policies to date... You might also note that we have just finishing our review (public comments close today) of the auDRP as well... see http://auda.org.au/reviews/audrp-2007/ Kindest Regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr APRALO rep to ALAC 2007-2009 -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2007 9:21 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] RAA comments Bret Fausett ha scritto:
I don't know whether the ALAC, as the ALAC, will submit anything, but please feel free to submit comments to ICANN yourselves, on your own behalf or on behalf of your ALS organization, by sending an email to raa-consultation@icann.org. You might copy the text of the draft John and Vittorio prepare and then say something like, "The comments below were developed on the At Large Advisory Committee mailing lists and are supported by [name of your ALS]."
I would like to know whether the ALAC does or does not plan to submit the comment as a Committee - first, because this might come up in Board discussions, and second, because then I might be submitting the text in individual capacity. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ha scritto:
Vittorio, I had and I suspect others of us (particularly us newbie's) on the ALAC had expected that list activities would contribute to if not formulate the final ALAC response at this stage on this topic... And with the advise that John was doing a final Draft I again assumed that was to be utilisable by the ALAC. This misinterpretation on my part will be raised as an example of a communication and process / expectations mismatch issue in the ALAC workshop on Sunday Oct 28th.
I don't think it was a misinterpretation - that was my understanding as well. I must comment that I asked a certain number of times both for comments by ALAC members, as early as possible so not to risk reopening the issues at a later point in time, and for what was the procedure that the ALAC intended to employ to release it (which, to me, seems a question to be sorted out by the Chair, so it possibly got caught in the switches between different people acting as Chair). This was necessary for me, as the lead drafter, to be able to plan my activity, as I had to find substantive amounts of time in very busy weeks, in which I was often traveling. I did not get comments from ALAC members, and I agree with you that this might just be silence=consent, but when no one sends anything it leaves you a bit lost; also I did not get indications on what should I do with the final draft, and whether the ALAC wanted to examine it, and how, and when, prior to releasing it. If I had been sure that I and the WG were representative of the views of the ALAC, I'd just have sent it, as I did several times in the past couple of years, to cover up for similar situations (and yes, covering up is perhaps not the right thing to do, but you don't always have the time to sort out your internal workings on the spot). But at the moment when I did not have any clear mandate or position on behalf of the ALAC any more, I thought I could not make that assumption any more. At the same time, also considering the more general comments by Robert and others... this phase remembers me of a company restructuring, when new owners come on board and they change the organization and part of the management, usually under strict time and budget constraints. In the end, they'll certainly make some mistakes and pay the switching costs, and certain things will unavoidably go bust because of the confusion and tension associated with changes, but this is not the point - the point is having clear which structure you are trying to build, finding ways to manage the transition, and conclude it as quickly as possible, without delay. I would expect that, at latest by the end of the LA meeting, the ALAC has a clear organization and management, so that similar situations do not happen in the future. This is much more important than who gets to land in which box in the organizational chart. I suggest you to focus on the former and not on the latter. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I did not get comments from ALAC members, and I agree with you that this might just be silence=consent, but when no one sends anything it leaves you a bit lost;
Somehow I doubt that there's really that little interest in RAA issues. I'd have expected the European members to weigh in on the registrant data privacy issue, for example. Lack of participation has always been a problem. When I was on the ALAC, there was a distinct tendency for members to stop paying attention until it was time to buy plane tickets, in some cases not even then, so there was a burst of activity around the in-person meetings, and otherwise pretty much nothing. Vittorio was one of the few to stay consistently active. It's a fundamental problem with the idea of the ALAC that all of the members are doing it in their spare time, since if it's part of your day job you don't belong in ALAC. Yet the way it's set up, there's a lot of work involved in keeping track of what's going on and staying well enough informed to make useful comments. I hope ALAC can organize itself with a strong enough chair and secretariat to keep a schedule of pending activities and deadlines, of which as Danny reminds us there are many, so that ALAC members are at least expected to say explicitly that they have no comments if they don't. Also, now that there are RALOs, it would make sense to ask RALO members to work on specific areas of interest to them so the ALAC members don't have to invent everything on their own. Good luck, it'll be hard, and it's never really worked before. R's, John
participants (11)
-
Bret Fausett -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
John L -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Robert Guerra -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola