Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total
The weekly posting to the list of the list of messages sent, has me thinking that tracking of our messages is being done. This raises a couple of issues, that i'll comment on below. 1. What information is being tracked ? The information listed, gives information only details messages sent - and not what messages have been read. cookies and/or embedded messages would have to be added to the messages to be able to better track what is being read. 2. Has a privacy statement been developed and shared, and approved by ALAC regarding the personal mailing list data that now seems to be collected & used. As has been stated several times on this list - Strong privacy legislation and/or standards exist in many of the jurisdictions where ALS are active. If indeed we are strong supporters of Privacy, then we should recognize that the new practice of "tracking our postings" - is a change in the use of trans-border personal information, one that - in certain jurisdictions - requires consent of the parties involved. No prior consent, I believe was requested - so , we might have an issue. 3. Yes, the message posting list might appear innocent enough - but, let's not forget that we need to serve as an example and practice the very recommendations that we "preach" regarding privacy. I look forward to hearing what others think about this, and what steps (if any) we might want to take .. regards Robert ps. some references The OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy Canada - The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ind/index_e.asp http://www.privcom.gc.ca/bus/index_e.asp And since ICANN is based in California - some links to legislation that likely apply to California based corporations... http://www.oispp.ca.gov/consumer_privacy/business/default.asp California has passed legislation requiring certain specific disclosures be made available to California residents who use the Internet and provide information that may be used for marketing purposes. That legislation requires any business that discloses a customer's personal information (as defined by the act) to any third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer a method for obtaining the names, addresses and certain other specified details of anyone who might have received that personal information.. On 11-Apr-08, at 8:36 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total
_______________________________________________ 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
Robert, What exactly is the "privacy' concern here? That someone has a program, which counts the bytes and the messages? You can do it, without a program, just by going in the last week's messages, and manually doing exactly the same. Then you can put this data in a spreadsheet, and have the same result. I understand that people are concerned about privacy, but what has the privacy to do with a public mailing list, where every member can see how many messages are being written, and how big they are? On the contrary - this is pure statistical information, quite useful IMHO. Disclaimer: I can't make the same statistics, because the messages from writer No.1 in the list below are being filtered at the server level, and I can't receive them. From today's discussion between Adam, Izumi and Danny, I see there's a chance to include a second person in this filter list. Best, Veni At 10:59 11.04.2008 -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
The weekly posting to the list of the list of messages sent, has me thinking that tracking of our messages is being done. This raises a couple of issues, that i'll comment on below.
1. What information is being tracked ?
The information listed, gives information only details messages sent - and not what messages have been read. cookies and/or embedded messages would have to be added to the messages to be able to better track what is being read.
2. Has a privacy statement been developed and shared, and approved by ALAC regarding the personal mailing list data that now seems to be collected & used.
As has been stated several times on this list - Strong privacy legislation and/or standards exist in many of the jurisdictions where ALS are active.
If indeed we are strong supporters of Privacy, then we should recognize that the new practice of "tracking our postings" - is a change in the use of trans-border personal information, one that - in certain jurisdictions - requires consent of the parties involved. No prior consent, I believe was requested - so , we might have an issue.
3. Yes, the message posting list might appear innocent enough - but, let's not forget that we need to serve as an example and practice the very recommendations that we "preach" regarding privacy.
I look forward to hearing what others think about this, and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
regards
Robert
ps. some references
The OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy
Canada - The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ind/index_e.asp http://www.privcom.gc.ca/bus/index_e.asp
And since ICANN is based in California - some links to legislation that likely apply to California based corporations...
http://www.oispp.ca.gov/consumer_privacy/business/default.asp
California has passed legislation requiring certain specific disclosures be made available to California residents who use the Internet and provide information that may be used for marketing purposes. That legislation requires any business that discloses a customer's personal information (as defined by the act) to any third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer a method for obtaining the names, addresses and certain other specified details of anyone who might have received that personal information..
On 11-Apr-08, at 8:36 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Veni: Thank you for your message. Are you posting in your capacity as an ICANN staff member, or in some other capacity? The posting of mailing list statistics - is, a new development. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), was done without prior notification. If stats are being displayed in a very public way , then it is safe to assume that the information is being used to track us. if it's useful or not is really not the point - the issue is that LEGALLY, in certain jurisdictions - prior notification of what information is being collected, used and for what purpose needs to be up front and clear. Perhaps it is not an issue for organizations based in the US, but I know that ALS's in europe (an perhaps here in Canada too) have a legal requirement to inform their members that messages posted to this list will be not only archived (something, that we have consented to) but also tracked (a new practice, that where consent has - i don't believe - been given). The European Data directive as well well as substantially similar legislation elsewhere are one that ALS's are bound by. Notification and consent - are key concepts that can not be summarily ignored. regards Robert On 11-Apr-08, at 11:21 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:
Robert, What exactly is the "privacy' concern here? That someone has a program, which counts the bytes and the messages? You can do it, without a program, just by going in the last week's messages, and manually doing exactly the same. Then you can put this data in a spreadsheet, and have the same result.
I understand that people are concerned about privacy, but what has the privacy to do with a public mailing list, where every member can see how many messages are being written, and how big they are? On the contrary - this is pure statistical information, quite useful IMHO.
Disclaimer: I can't make the same statistics, because the messages from writer No.1 in the list below are being filtered at the server level, and I can't receive them. From today's discussion between Adam, Izumi and Danny, I see there's a chance to include a second person in this filter list.
Best, Veni
At 10:59 11.04.2008 -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
The weekly posting to the list of the list of messages sent, has me thinking that tracking of our messages is being done. This raises a couple of issues, that i'll comment on below.
1. What information is being tracked ?
The information listed, gives information only details messages sent - and not what messages have been read. cookies and/or embedded messages would have to be added to the messages to be able to better track what is being read.
2. Has a privacy statement been developed and shared, and approved by ALAC regarding the personal mailing list data that now seems to be collected & used.
As has been stated several times on this list - Strong privacy legislation and/or standards exist in many of the jurisdictions where ALS are active.
If indeed we are strong supporters of Privacy, then we should recognize that the new practice of "tracking our postings" - is a change in the use of trans-border personal information, one that - in certain jurisdictions - requires consent of the parties involved. No prior consent, I believe was requested - so , we might have an issue.
3. Yes, the message posting list might appear innocent enough - but, let's not forget that we need to serve as an example and practice the very recommendations that we "preach" regarding privacy.
I look forward to hearing what others think about this, and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
regards
Robert
ps. some references
The OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy
Canada - The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ind/index_e.asp http://www.privcom.gc.ca/bus/index_e.asp
And since ICANN is based in California - some links to legislation that likely apply to California based corporations...
http://www.oispp.ca.gov/consumer_privacy/business/default.asp
California has passed legislation requiring certain specific disclosures be made available to California residents who use the Internet and provide information that may be used for marketing purposes. That legislation requires any business that discloses a customer's personal information (as defined by the act) to any third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer a method for obtaining the names, addresses and certain other specified details of anyone who might have received that personal information..
On 11-Apr-08, at 8:36 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
At 11:35 11.04.2008 -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
Veni:
Thank you for your message. Are you posting in your capacity as an ICANN staff member, or in some other capacity?
Robert, as usual - and I am already tired of repeating this - I am writing in my own capacity. You can tell that even by the email address from which I post. As you are certainly aware, this has nothing to do with the topic of the e-mail, but is a tool to divert the attention. That is, to say, you don't sign your e-mails, so the natural thing to think is that you write here in your own capacity, and not start to look for conspiracy behind the fact that your e-mail address is "lists@priaterra.info" ;)
The posting of mailing list statistics - is, a new development. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), was done without prior notification.
And, if you don't mind, why would a prior notification be needed? So that people start to think how many bytes they write? Or how many messages they post? Even this conversation between us will increase both numbers.
If stats are being displayed in a very public way , then it is safe to assume that the information is being used to track us. if it's useful or not is really not the point - the issue is that LEGALLY, in certain jurisdictions - prior notification of what information is being collected, used and for what purpose needs to be up front and clear.
Could you tell how exactly we are "being tracked"? As I said, this is not information which can be considered private, or within the limits of the data protection laws (at least in Bulgaria, which should be based on the EU directives), afaik, esp. that we are talking about a public mailing list.
will be not only archived (something, that we have consented to) but also tracked (a new practice, that where consent has - i don't believe - been given).
Perhaps we should be more precise - not that messages are tracked, but they are counted. The same way a kid counts the cars, passing on the street, or the number of passanges inside the cars. Or both - in our case. I've played that game as a kid, and I certainly can't think of a reason why I'd consider this as "tracking" Best, Veni
Veni, Robert all I don't see any problem at all in this matter. The idea is just not waste our time in issues not directly related to what ALAC shall do to worth its existence. Any effort to reduce emails which are not contributing to our focus will have my applause. Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Veni Markovski Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de abril de 2008 12:49 Para: Robert Guerra; At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - a privacy violation .. ? At 11:35 11.04.2008 -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
Veni:
Thank you for your message. Are you posting in your capacity as an ICANN staff member, or in some other capacity?
Robert, as usual - and I am already tired of repeating this - I am writing in my own capacity. You can tell that even by the email address from which I post. As you are certainly aware, this has nothing to do with the topic of the e-mail, but is a tool to divert the attention. That is, to say, you don't sign your e-mails, so the natural thing to think is that you write here in your own capacity, and not start to look for conspiracy behind the fact that your e-mail address is "lists@priaterra.info" ;)
The posting of mailing list statistics - is, a new development. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), was done without prior notification.
And, if you don't mind, why would a prior notification be needed? So that people start to think how many bytes they write? Or how many messages they post? Even this conversation between us will increase both numbers.
If stats are being displayed in a very public way , then it is safe to assume that the information is being used to track us. if it's useful or not is really not the point - the issue is that LEGALLY, in certain jurisdictions - prior notification of what information is being collected, used and for what purpose needs to be up front and clear.
Could you tell how exactly we are "being tracked"? As I said, this is not information which can be considered private, or within the limits of the data protection laws (at least in Bulgaria, which should be based on the EU directives), afaik, esp. that we are talking about a public mailing list.
will be not only archived (something, that we have consented to) but also tracked (a new practice, that where consent has - i don't believe - been given).
Perhaps we should be more precise - not that messages are tracked, but they are counted. The same way a kid counts the cars, passing on the street, or the number of passanges inside the cars. Or both - in our case. I've played that game as a kid, and I certainly can't think of a reason why I'd consider this as "tracking" Best, Veni _______________________________________________ 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
Amen. D ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Vanda Scartezini UOL Sent: Fri 4/11/2008 1:55 PM To: 'Veni Markovski'; 'Robert Guerra'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] RES: Tracking of our messages - a privacy violation .. ? Veni, Robert all I don't see any problem at all in this matter. The idea is just not waste our time in issues not directly related to what ALAC shall do to worth its existence. Any effort to reduce emails which are not contributing to our focus will have my applause. Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br ? Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Veni Markovski Enviada em: sexta-feira, 11 de abril de 2008 12:49 Para: Robert Guerra; At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - a privacy violation .. ? At 11:35 11.04.2008 -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
Veni:
Thank you for your message. Are you posting in your capacity as an ICANN staff member, or in some other capacity?
Robert, as usual - and I am already tired of repeating this - I am writing in my own capacity. You can tell that even by the email address from which I post. As you are certainly aware, this has nothing to do with the topic of the e-mail, but is a tool to divert the attention. That is, to say, you don't sign your e-mails, so the natural thing to think is that you write here in your own capacity, and not start to look for conspiracy behind the fact that your e-mail address is "lists@priaterra.info" ;)
The posting of mailing list statistics - is, a new development. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), was done without prior notification.
And, if you don't mind, why would a prior notification be needed? So that people start to think how many bytes they write? Or how many messages they post? Even this conversation between us will increase both numbers.
If stats are being displayed in a very public way , then it is safe to assume that the information is being used to track us. if it's useful or not is really not the point - the issue is that LEGALLY, in certain jurisdictions - prior notification of what information is being collected, used and for what purpose needs to be up front and clear.
Could you tell how exactly we are "being tracked"? As I said, this is not information which can be considered private, or within the limits of the data protection laws (at least in Bulgaria, which should be based on the EU directives), afaik, esp. that we are talking about a public mailing list.
will be not only archived (something, that we have consented to) but also tracked (a new practice, that where consent has - i don't believe - been given).
Perhaps we should be more precise - not that messages are tracked, but they are counted. The same way a kid counts the cars, passing on the street, or the number of passanges inside the cars. Or both - in our case. I've played that game as a kid, and I certainly can't think of a reason why I'd consider this as "tracking" Best, Veni _______________________________________________ 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 <http://atlarge.icann.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 <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
I look forward to hearing what others think about this
Monthly posting summaries are common on lists at many organizations such as the IETF with participants from around the world. They're a useful way to track the health of a list. Since the summaries are sent to the same list where everyone has already seen all of the messages, it's hard to think of any reasonable basis on which this would be a privacy violation.
and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
None I can think of. R's, John PS: Don't look at this URL. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
John & Vini: My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue. My personal view, is that a new practice was introduced - one that wasn't sufficiently explained nor discussed before the weekly summaries started to appear. How and for what purposes the stats are being used, might be legally required in certain jurisdictions. Great to see this is being discussed. I am keen to hear views from others - and from there, identify any recommendations (if any) that should be sent to staff and/or the board. regards Robert On 11-Apr-08, at 11:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
I look forward to hearing what others think about this
Monthly posting summaries are common on lists at many organizations such as the IETF with participants from around the world. They're a useful way to track the health of a list. Since the summaries are sent to the same list where everyone has already seen all of the messages, it's hard to think of any reasonable basis on which this would be a privacy violation.
and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
None I can think of.
R's, John
PS: Don't look at this URL.
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
Robert, this is silly. The ALAC has a lot of important issues to deal with, but this isn't one of them. If the full text public archive of this list isn't a problem, it's absurd to claim that a few simple statistics are. R's, John
A simple message from staff indicating that statistics were going to be posted for the use of helping us assess the level of engagement would be a good thing to have happened. Not sure why such a notice wasn't sent. regards Robert On 11-Apr-08, at 12:25 PM, John Levine wrote:
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
Robert, this is silly. The ALAC has a lot of important issues to deal with, but this isn't one of them.
If the full text public archive of this list isn't a problem, it's absurd to claim that a few simple statistics are.
R's, John
Are the statistics published by the staff, that you expect them to do so? veni On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
A simple message from staff indicating that statistics were going to be posted for the use of helping us assess the level of engagement would be a good thing to have happened.
Not sure why such a notice wasn't sent.
regards
Robert
On 11-Apr-08, at 12:25 PM, John Levine wrote:
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
Robert, this is silly. The ALAC has a lot of important issues to deal with, but this isn't one of them.
If the full text public archive of this list isn't a problem, it's absurd to claim that a few simple statistics are.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
Robert I as Chair of ALAC caused these statistics to be posted as a result of discussions at both ExCo and ALAC meetings that you unfortunately were not able to attend... This topic of list activity is on the next ExCo meeting and we will also report to the ALAC and public lists as we (ALAC) is in a point of review this topic (as you should know) however if you so desire we will brief you more fully in a 5 minute session (held just prior to the advertised start time) at the next meeting you attend... Let me know... There is NO requirement on staff to respond as they are acting under ExCo instruction... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:42 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation .. ? A simple message from staff indicating that statistics were going to be posted for the use of helping us assess the level of engagement would be a good thing to have happened. Not sure why such a notice wasn't sent. regards Robert On 11-Apr-08, at 12:25 PM, John Levine wrote:
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
Robert, this is silly. The ALAC has a lot of important issues to deal with, but this isn't one of them.
If the full text public archive of this list isn't a problem, it's absurd to claim that a few simple statistics are.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
Robert Guerra wrote:
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, I'd have to say that my interest is in stopping such discussion ... or rather, diverting and focusing our scarce time and energies into issues directly aimed at asserting the public point of view within ICANN.
This is a public list, and as such I have no problem with anyone's analysis of its content, _especially_ when the results of such analysis are fed back to us for our own benefit. Personally, I have no use for the stats -- I prefer to judge quality of content rather than counting words -- but my personal opinion of the utility of the posts is irrelevant. If I cared enough not to see Thomas' stats messages I would filter them, but I cannot be bothered to do so.
from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
First an issue needs to exist. I see no evidence to suggest one. Hasn't ALAC done enough navel gazing?(*) - Evan (*) Those who are unfamiliar with the English term "navel gazing" are invited to consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphaloskepsis
By the way, not sure of the definition of new. It's been on some lists for over a year now. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation.. ?
John & Vini:
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
My personal view, is that a new practice was introduced - one that wasn't sufficiently explained nor discussed before the weekly summaries started to appear. How and for what purposes the stats are being used, might be legally required in certain jurisdictions.
Great to see this is being discussed. I am keen to hear views from others - and from there, identify any recommendations (if any) that should be sent to staff and/or the board.
regards
Robert
On 11-Apr-08, at 11:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
I look forward to hearing what others think about this
Monthly posting summaries are common on lists at many organizations such as the IETF with participants from around the world. They're a useful way to track the health of a list. Since the summaries are sent to the same list where everyone has already seen all of the messages, it's hard to think of any reasonable basis on which this would be a privacy violation.
and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
None I can think of.
R's, John
PS: Don't look at this URL.
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.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
Robert, I do not see any problem with the statistics published. More even, it stimulates us to continue to read and if possible to reply on questions and issues dropped on this list, for as far as they are relevant of course. An overload of message will certainly not help, so please let us focus on our real job here ... Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Robert Guerra schreef:
John & Vini:
My interest is to - start a discussion on this, and from there see what consensus (if any) emerges on the issue.
My personal view, is that a new practice was introduced - one that wasn't sufficiently explained nor discussed before the weekly summaries started to appear. How and for what purposes the stats are being used, might be legally required in certain jurisdictions.
Great to see this is being discussed. I am keen to hear views from others - and from there, identify any recommendations (if any) that should be sent to staff and/or the board.
regards
Robert
On 11-Apr-08, at 11:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
I look forward to hearing what others think about this
Monthly posting summaries are common on lists at many organizations such as the IETF with participants from around the world. They're a useful way to track the health of a list. Since the summaries are sent to the same list where everyone has already seen all of the messages, it's hard to think of any reasonable basis on which this would be a privacy violation.
and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
None I can think of.
R's, John
PS: Don't look at this URL.
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.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
I agree. It was done to be helpful, not as an invasion of privacy. Chris McElroy ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Tracking of our messages - not a privacy violation .. ?
I look forward to hearing what others think about this
Monthly posting summaries are common on lists at many organizations such as the IETF with participants from around the world. They're a useful way to track the health of a list. Since the summaries are sent to the same list where everyone has already seen all of the messages, it's hard to think of any reasonable basis on which this would be a privacy violation.
and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
None I can think of.
R's, John
PS: Don't look at this URL.
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.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
FYI, the information being posted comes from the public list archive of this mailing list. The Chair requested that a simple listing of who posts and how many times per week be generated and very fortunately Thomas Narten, who subscribes to this list and performs the same service for the GA list, offered to help and posts the summary each week. The discussion about this happened whilst you were away, so I've recapped it here for you and for any others who have subscribed in the last few weeks. On 11/04/2008 16:59, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> wrote: The weekly posting to the list of the list of messages sent, has me thinking that tracking of our messages is being done. This raises a couple of issues, that i'll comment on below. 1. What information is being tracked ? The information listed, gives information only details messages sent - and not what messages have been read. cookies and/or embedded messages would have to be added to the messages to be able to better track what is being read. 2. Has a privacy statement been developed and shared, and approved by ALAC regarding the personal mailing list data that now seems to be collected & used. As has been stated several times on this list - Strong privacy legislation and/or standards exist in many of the jurisdictions where ALS are active. If indeed we are strong supporters of Privacy, then we should recognize that the new practice of "tracking our postings" - is a change in the use of trans-border personal information, one that - in certain jurisdictions - requires consent of the parties involved. No prior consent, I believe was requested - so , we might have an issue. 3. Yes, the message posting list might appear innocent enough - but, let's not forget that we need to serve as an example and practice the very recommendations that we "preach" regarding privacy. I look forward to hearing what others think about this, and what steps (if any) we might want to take .. regards Robert ps. some references The OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy Canada - The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ind/index_e.asp http://www.privcom.gc.ca/bus/index_e.asp And since ICANN is based in California - some links to legislation that likely apply to California based corporations... http://www.oispp.ca.gov/consumer_privacy/business/default.asp California has passed legislation requiring certain specific disclosures be made available to California residents who use the Internet and provide information that may be used for marketing purposes. That legislation requires any business that discloses a customer's personal information (as defined by the act) to any third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer a method for obtaining the names, addresses and certain other specified details of anyone who might have received that personal information.. On 11-Apr-08, at 8:36 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
robert What do you mean by "tracking"? All I see is that recently there was a discussion about posting overload and a member of the list decided to count the emails sent by each peron. I don't see any privacy violation - everyone can go to the public archives and do the same count (even people who are not members of the list!) It's a public list, with public archives that are available on search engines! What could be private about that? Jacqueline Robert Guerra wrote:
The weekly posting to the list of the list of messages sent, has me thinking that tracking of our messages is being done. This raises a couple of issues, that i'll comment on below.
1. What information is being tracked ?
The information listed, gives information only details messages sent - and not what messages have been read. cookies and/or embedded messages would have to be added to the messages to be able to better track what is being read.
2. Has a privacy statement been developed and shared, and approved by ALAC regarding the personal mailing list data that now seems to be collected & used.
As has been stated several times on this list - Strong privacy legislation and/or standards exist in many of the jurisdictions where ALS are active.
If indeed we are strong supporters of Privacy, then we should recognize that the new practice of "tracking our postings" - is a change in the use of trans-border personal information, one that - in certain jurisdictions - requires consent of the parties involved. No prior consent, I believe was requested - so , we might have an issue.
3. Yes, the message posting list might appear innocent enough - but, let's not forget that we need to serve as an example and practice the very recommendations that we "preach" regarding privacy.
I look forward to hearing what others think about this, and what steps (if any) we might want to take ..
regards
Robert
ps. some references
The OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy
Canada - The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ind/index_e.asp http://www.privcom.gc.ca/bus/index_e.asp
And since ICANN is based in California - some links to legislation that likely apply to California based corporations...
http://www.oispp.ca.gov/consumer_privacy/business/default.asp
California has passed legislation requiring certain specific disclosures be made available to California residents who use the Internet and provide information that may be used for marketing purposes. That legislation requires any business that discloses a customer's personal information (as defined by the act) to any third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer a method for obtaining the names, addresses and certain other specified details of anyone who might have received that personal information..
On 11-Apr-08, at 8:36 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008
Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (12)
-
Blogs.pn -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John Levine -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Robert Guerra -
Rudi Vansnick -
Thomas Narten -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vanda Scartezini UOL -
Veni Markovski