ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
Hello everyone, As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded. In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions. I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters. What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding? - Evan
Hi Evan I don't necessarily think that it's an either/or thing. If you can somehow enter into dialog with the parties and get them to understand the positives and quiet their fears on the negatives, then I think that the objections will evaporate. I would suggest feeling out the registries and registrars themselves directly on what their problems are with opening up the meetings and not via the staff - best to hear the objections from the horse's mouth so to speak. I think that after hearing the objections directly you'd be clearer as to whether it is worth it to continue. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible. On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Perhaps a matter to be looked at by the Review Team for Accountability and Transparency (A&T) whomever is selected to "represent the ALAC" ought to be charged with this task (along with looking at other matter of at-large community concern), is a way forward here, as that should be a way of gauging the widest level of ICANN community concern on these issues, (in my personal view). On the matter of the Review Team for A&T I would like to put to the community, the RALO's and of course the ALAC the question of how you would like to outline or identify specific concerns that this Review Team should be made aware of... This will be an Agenda matter for discussion at the next ALAC Meeting and I hope the Regional meetings over the next month(s) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 8 March 2010 11:10, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Evan I don't necessarily think that it's an either/or thing. If you can somehow enter into dialog with the parties and get them to understand the positives and quiet their fears on the negatives, then I think that the objections will evaporate. I would suggest feeling out the registries and registrars themselves directly on what their problems are with opening up the meetings and not via the staff - best to hear the objections from the horse's mouth so to speak. I think that after hearing the objections directly you'd be clearer as to whether it is worth it to continue.
Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they literally pay the piper, they can call the tune. I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review Team. Carlton ======================================================================================== On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade secret or other contractual issues, the other regional meetings should absolutely be open and the community should be informed well in advance. Hong On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they literally pay the piper, they can call the tune.
I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review Team.
Carlton ========================================================================================
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
On 03/07/2010 10:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade secret or other contractual issues...
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace. I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave. --karl--
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure? -- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org
On 03/07/2010 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
I don't know. But it would not surprise me if an expert in these things said that in the balance of interests that occur when measuring risks that having public participation, and in particular participation by the customers, might help alleviate the risk. Again, I'm not an expert in this stuff, and things will probably vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction (such as US, EU, etc etc.) --karl--
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings.. Gareth On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
But contrary to the registrars, end users are seen as "direct" money suppliers to ICANN and this might be the reason for our not being able to get the funding we are asking for regular regional meetings. Fatimata On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca>wrote:
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I
had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
+1 Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Gareth Shearman Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2010 10:35 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1 Rudi Vansnick President Internet Society Belgium vzw Op 8/03/2010 11:39, Sébastien Bachollet schreef:
+1
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Gareth Shearman Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2010 10:35 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it
becomes
necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-
lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.733 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2729 - datum van uitgifte: 03/07/10 22:34:00
+1 Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Rudi Vansnick Sent: Mon 3/8/2010 4:06 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed +1 Rudi Vansnick President Internet Society Belgium vzw Op 8/03/2010 11:39, Sébastien Bachollet schreef:
+1
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Gareth Shearman Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2010 10:35 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it
becomes
necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-
lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.733 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2729 - datum van uitgifte: 03/07/10 22:34:00
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
+1 RJ Glass A@L AmericaAtLarge On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca>wrote:
+1
Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
________________________________
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Rudi Vansnick Sent: Mon 3/8/2010 4:06 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
+1
Rudi Vansnick President Internet Society Belgium vzw
Op 8/03/2010 11:39, Sébastien Bachollet schreef:
+1
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Gareth Shearman Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2010 10:35 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it
becomes
necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-
lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org < http://atlarge.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org < http://atlarge.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <
Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 9.0.733 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2729 - datum van uitgifte:
03/07/10 22:34:00
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org < http://atlarge.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
+1 CW On 08 Mar 2010, at 09:39, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
+1
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Gareth Shearman Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2010 10:35 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1 izumi 2010/3/9 Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>:
+1 CW
On 08 Mar 2010, at 09:39, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
+1
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Gareth Shearman Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2010 10:35 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
Gareth
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 23:34:58 -0800, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
+0.5 The At-Large regional meetings are another matter. If we want to meet on our own with the ICANN staff, fine. That is precisely what the registrars do during their "ICANN regional meetings". I think what Evan and others meant to say was that those "ICANN regional meetings" should be a way for the community to interact with the registrars. FWIW, I find these "ICANN regional meetings" a misnomer. They should rather be named "ICANN staff business meetings with registrars" in their current state, and that would make it much clearer. I have no issue at all with an organization having business meetings with its partners. Many ccTLDs do exactly the same. Rather, I would suggest such "ICANN regional meetings" could have closed sessions with business partners and open sessions with the rest of the community. Patrick
At 10:03 AM 3/8/2010, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: "Rather, I would suggest such "ICANN regional meetings" could have closed sessions with business partners and open sessions with the rest of the community." An important and interesting suggestion. Best regards, Hakik
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 23:34:58 -0800, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
+0.5
The At-Large regional meetings are another matter. If we want to meet on our own with the ICANN staff, fine. That is precisely what the registrars do during their "ICANN regional meetings". I think what Evan and others meant to say was that those "ICANN regional meetings" should be a way for the community to interact with the registrars.
FWIW, I find these "ICANN regional meetings" a misnomer. They should rather be named "ICANN staff business meetings with registrars" in their current state, and that would make it much clearer. I have no issue at all with an organization having business meetings with its partners. Many ccTLDs do exactly the same.
Rather, I would suggest such "ICANN regional meetings" could have closed sessions with business partners and open sessions with the rest of the community.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Hakikur Rahman <email@hakik.org> wrote:
At 10:03 AM 3/8/2010, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
"Rather, I would suggest such "ICANN regional meetings" could have closed sessions with business partners and open sessions with the rest of the community."
An important and interesting suggestion.
Best regards, Hakik
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 23:34:58 -0800, Gareth Shearman
<shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings..
+0.5
The At-Large regional meetings are another matter. If we want to meet on our own with the ICANN staff, fine. That is precisely what the registrars do during their "ICANN regional meetings". I think what Evan and others meant to say was that those "ICANN regional meetings" should be a way for the community to interact with the registrars.
FWIW, I find these "ICANN regional meetings" a misnomer. They should rather be named "ICANN staff business meetings with registrars" in their current state, and that would make it much clearer. I have no issue at all with an organization having business meetings with its partners. Many ccTLDs do exactly the same.
Rather, I would suggest such "ICANN regional meetings" could have closed sessions with business partners and open sessions with the rest of the community.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ... and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business. Vanda -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:25 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade secret or other contractual issues, the other regional meetings should absolutely be open and the community should be informed well in advance. Hong On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they literally pay the piper, they can call the tune.
I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review Team.
Carlton
============================================================================ ============
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for
registrars
and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 11 March 2010 16:39, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ... and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business.
Vanda, the meetings that we are talking about CANNOT be used for registrars or registries to talk about their individual businesses. That would contravene anti-competition laws. In any case, Tim has alreadty said that there is no such confidential information exchanged in the regional meetings. - Evan
Add my voice to the list of people who think these meetings should be open, at least for observation. I can understand not giving observers a platform for talking. Frankly, I don't know why it's such a big deal. I would not expect more than one or two observers at any of the meetings. Bret P.S. These meetings used to be open. Back when I was blogging about ICANN, I attended a registrar meeting here in LA. All they asked was that I sign in and shut up.
+1 I agree Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Bret Fausett Sent: Thu 3/11/2010 1:52 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed Add my voice to the list of people who think these meetings should be open, at least for observation. I can understand not giving observers a platform for talking. Frankly, I don't know why it's such a big deal. I would not expect more than one or two observers at any of the meetings. Bret P.S. These meetings used to be open. Back when I was blogging about ICANN, I attended a registrar meeting here in LA. All they asked was that I sign in and shut up. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
What you describe seems to me to be the same public process telco carries have to undergo. Why should registrars be any different. You have given good points but they don't wash. cheers joe baptista On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ... and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business. Vanda
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:25 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade secret or other contractual issues, the other regional meetings should absolutely be open and the community should be informed well in advance.
Hong
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they literally pay the piper, they can call the tune.
I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review Team.
Carlton
============================================================================ ============
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation
from
staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 03/11/2010 05:39 AM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ... and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business.
We who buy and use domain name products have no alternative to the prices, terms, and conditions that are set via ICANN's system. Nor, if we were so motivated, are we able to go forth and set up our own domain name registries/registrars to compete with those set up by ICANN. In other words, we are captive buyers of ICANN's registries and registrars. Thus what happens in those meetings is that the prices, terms, and conditions that we will have to suffer and endure are being established. As such we have every right to not only see and hear but also ultimately to say "no, we customers do not agree". It is ironic to note the deference to corporate "privacy" when our human privacy is routinely penetrated by ICANN's "whois" policies. --karl--
As such we have every right to not only see and hear but also ultimately to say "no, we customers do not agree".
It is ironic to note the deference to corporate "privacy" when our human privacy is routinely penetrated by ICANN's "whois" policies.
--karl--
Karl, I belief some of the bad elements dissolve when exposed to light. Not just the registrar shenanigans, but the domain name owner shenanigans. What was that old saying, "would you do that if your mother was watching?"
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board. What kind of interests are you representing ? Jorge On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ... and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business. Vanda
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:25 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade secret or other contractual issues, the other regional meetings should absolutely be open and the community should be informed well in advance.
Hong
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they literally pay the piper, they can call the tune.
I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review Team.
Carlton
============================================================================ ============
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for
registrars
and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 03/13/2010 05:14 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
I've had the unique experience of trying to vote on ICANN's board on behalf of about 330,000,000 people. I quickly realized that it is enormously difficult, impossible really, to digest the opinions and emotions of even a tiny part of such a community and turn it into a single vote. The way that I tried to do that job was to be very active in email and be available to talk. That way when I said something either stupid of ill advised there would usually someone (or many someones) who could tell me of my error. The key is to listen to that feedback, consider it, and be willing to change. And I kept a written, public, online record of my ICANN board votes and the reasoning behind each vote so that people could see how I tried to balance things - it is still online at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/diary/index.htm Consequently I wouldn't be overly concerned with Vanda's statement - consider it an invitation to debate the point. Concern would exist if after several debates on several points it became clear that the matters raised were always being disregarded and dismissed without any chance that the original position might be altered. (Sometimes consideration of the push-back might not always result in a change of view.) --karl--
On 13 Mar 2010, at 14:14, Jorge Amodio wrote:
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
I expressed earlier similar views to those of Vanda and Hong WRT ICANN business meetings with registrars. Business meetings are, per definition, closed. Whether this is a one-to-one meeting or a one-to-many does not make a big difference. I also mentioned they should stop using this confusing naming. These are not "ICANN regional meetings", in that they do not target the whole community, nor do they address policy issues. -- Patrick Vande Walle Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 14:14, Jorge Amodio wrote:
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
I expressed earlier similar views to those of Vanda and Hong WRT ICANN business meetings with registrars. Business meetings are, per definition, closed. Whether this is a one-to-one meeting or a one-to-many does not make a big difference.
Seems to me to be a significant difference. One is a private contractual negotiation, the other is a group discussion about the rules that all registrars and registries must follow. Perhaps I have missed something? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 14:14, Jorge Amodio wrote:
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
I expressed earlier similar views to those of Vanda and Hong WRT ICANN business meetings with registrars. Business meetings are, per definition, closed. Whether this is a one-to-one meeting or a one-to-many does not make a big difference.
Seems to me to be a significant difference.
That's my understanding as well. Openness and transparency is a question of principle and I strongly believe that ALAC must try on every instance to advocate in that direction. If somebody want's to advocate for other interests, there are other parts of the house where that may be more appropriate.
One is a private contractual negotiation, the other is a group discussion about the rules that all registrars and registries must follow.
I'd not mind a private meeting of an individual biz with ICANN as you say for a contract negotiation or to deal with issues that may require certain level of confidentiality. Now being ICANN a nonprofit public benefit corporation I'd find very troubling if we are now funding "closed" meetings for a particular constituency without giving a chance to other constituencies to be part of the meeting or have a saying. Despite the latest gaffe from the CEO, ICANN is not just funded by the registries and registrars, the food chain starts with the people (individuals, corporations, or other organizations) paying for the names, as I told Rod in a tweet, without "us" there is no "you", and there would be no ICANN as you kow it.
Perhaps I have missed something?
I guess you are not alone. Cheers+1 Jorge
It is always worth pointing out who really pays! Christian On 14 Mar 2010, at 17:15, Jorge Amodio wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 14:14, Jorge Amodio wrote:
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
I expressed earlier similar views to those of Vanda and Hong WRT ICANN business meetings with registrars. Business meetings are, per definition, closed. Whether this is a one-to-one meeting or a one-to-many does not make a big difference.
Seems to me to be a significant difference.
That's my understanding as well.
Openness and transparency is a question of principle and I strongly believe that ALAC must try on every instance to advocate in that direction. If somebody want's to advocate for other interests, there are other parts of the house where that may be more appropriate.
One is a private contractual negotiation, the other is a group discussion about the rules that all registrars and registries must follow.
I'd not mind a private meeting of an individual biz with ICANN as you say for a contract negotiation or to deal with issues that may require certain level of confidentiality. Now being ICANN a nonprofit public benefit corporation I'd find very troubling if we are now funding "closed" meetings for a particular constituency without giving a chance to other constituencies to be part of the meeting or have a saying.
Despite the latest gaffe from the CEO, ICANN is not just funded by the registries and registrars, the food chain starts with the people (individuals, corporations, or other organizations) paying for the names, as I told Rod in a tweet, without "us" there is no "you", and there would be no ICANN as you kow it.
Perhaps I have missed something?
I guess you are not alone.
Cheers+1 Jorge
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Jorge. Right. The ALAC board liaison, could give to us some response at this matter as you said. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:14:32 -0600 From: jmamodio@gmail.com To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
Jorge
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ... and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business. Vanda
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:25 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade secret or other contractual issues, the other regional meetings should absolutely be open and the community should be informed well in advance.
Hong
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they literally pay the piper, they can call the tune.
I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review Team.
Carlton
============================================================================ ============
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for
registrars
and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ ¿Cuánto espacio necesitás para guardar tus emails? Con Hotmail tenés 5GB y puede ampliarse a más. http://www.descubrewindowslive.com/hotmail/almacenamiento.asp
I had no time since the meeting ended last week in Kenya. First of all, I guess the way we address emails shall be under our rules of politeness. I have no interest in any registry or registar and during 10 years I have been in ICANN working for the interest of the community. So, I do believe, and any one which is not just an academic or a public servant knows very well that particularities of contracts are always debated in privacy. The problem is the name people was using to call these Registrar meetings - It is not a regional meeting at all!! Last November had one of Registrar meetings here in Sao Paulo and only registrars were invited - the agenda: finance details of contracts. Everybody was able to criticize the registrar agreement posted for public consultation. The final platform of any registrar contract is known. The details of each registrar, the problems they are having or not, these are private matter and always will be. I guess we spend so much time talking about no relevant issues and less time working with the policy ones, we should be done. Best to all Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg an ICANN ALS tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of carlos aguirre Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:36 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed Dear Jorge. Right. The ALAC board liaison, could give to us some response at this matter as you said. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:14:32 -0600
From: jmamodio@gmail.com
To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm
now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's
liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
Jorge
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
Registrars/registries negotiations with ICANN IMO can not be open. They will
be talking about their business, the problems they face, prices they pay ...
and this doesn't belongs to others to be aware. No company open their
agreements/ no business association allows other than their associates to
participate in issues will impact their particular sector of business.
Vanda
-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:25 AM
To: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN regional meetings to remain closed
I can see Evan's concerns on transparency. Even if the meetings with
Registries/Registrars might have the reason to be close for trade
secret or other contractual issues, the other regional meetings should
absolutely be open and the community should be informed well in
advance.
Hong
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The principle is important to test, especially in this AoC era. But I
suspect the registrars/registries may just assume that since they
literally
pay the piper, they can call the tune.
I would support this matter becoming an agenda item for the A&T Review
Team.
Carlton
============================================================================
============
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from
staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for
registrars
and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard
indicated
that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to
the
Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the
meetings
that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded
meetings
will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will
have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the
meetings
have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to
get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the
meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that
the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on
discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are
completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to
those
who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are
local
to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure
that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not
policy.
Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency
issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for
contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize,
fully
fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their
choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be
restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence
staff,
different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt
with
through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and
accountability.
Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that
channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after
Cole's
presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as
ALAC
is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and
we
have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth
avoiding?
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
--
+========+++++++++++++++======
Carlton A Samuels
Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process
Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
--
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
www.iipl.org.cn
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ ¿Cuánto espacio necesitás para guardar tus emails? Con Hotmail tenés 5GB y puede ampliarse a más. http://www.descubrewindowslive.com/hotmail/almacenamiento.asp _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi Vanda, On 21 March 2010 21:10, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
So, I do believe, and any one which is not just an academic or a public servant knows very well that particularities of contracts are always debated in privacy. The problem is the name people was using to call these Registrar meetings - It is not a regional meeting at all!!
Last November had one of Registrar meetings here in Sao Paulo and only registrars were invited - the agenda: finance details of contracts.
I think you were misinformed. Please refer to my original message that started this thread. Tim Cole says that there is *nothing* of a confidential nature discussed in these meetings. As registrars and registries compete with each other, each specific relationship with ICANN is confidential and is done one-to-one; however what is discussed as a group (such as in these meetings) is not confidential. The slide shows of the presentations given by ICANN are publicly posted. In fact, because of anti-competition rules in the US, EU and elsewhere, ICANN *cannot* legally talk about specific business details with all registrars as a group. You are welcome to confirm this. I am making the point that, since there is nothing confidential discussed at these meetings (this is what ICANN staff claim), then the meetings should be open. I believe you are arguing in support of a situation (confidential discussions at the meetings) that does not exist. - Evan
On 03/21/2010 06:10 PM, Vanda UOL wrote:
So, I do believe, and any one which is not just an academic or a public servant knows very well that particularities of contracts are always debated in privacy.
I disagree. ICANN is *not* an independent private party and it is *not* negotiating a private contract. Rather in these meetings and negotiations ICANN is engaging in a regulatory act, defining what a registrar/registry may or may not do and directly and materially affecting the rights of the public. ICANN is created and exists under the law to act serve the public and promote the public interest. ICANN is *our* agent. ICANN obtains exemptions from taxation on the condition that ICANN act in the public interest. Private meetings and closed negotiations are exactly that - private and closed sessions in which promises are made to act or to refrain from acting. The absolutely fundamental foundation of accountability is for us, the public for whose benefit ICANN exists, to know what ICANN is giving up, what ICANN is gaining, and why. Closed meetings make a mockery of that foundation of accountability. Indeed closed meetings create non-accountability. If ICANN wants to engage in private negotiations and meetings then ICANN should drop the facade of being a public interest corporation with tax exemptions and some protections from director liability and it should re-incorporate itself as a private stock corporation. Of course, were ICANN to do that it would stand clearly in the harsh light of the question whether ICANN is a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade under the laws of the United States, the EU, or any other nation in which it has a presence of substantial effect. I am rather surprised that any registrar or registry would attend a private meeting - attendance at such meetings makes it more likely that attending registrars or registries will be be dragged in should there be an inquiry whether ICANN is acting on contravention of the laws of fair competition. --karl--
Can anybody explain why ICANN believes it needs to hold closed regional meetings with registries and registrars? Also is there a danger that ICANN will start to go down the bad and destructive old ITU ways? (where user interests simply could not get a look in because its meetings were closed and that is how pricing was set globally by the supply chain and local monopolists irrespective of development and societal needs.) Christian On 7 Mar 2010, at 23:43, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello everyone,
As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded.
In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions.
I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters.
What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (25)
-
Bill Silverstein -
Bret Fausett -
carlos aguirre -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Gareth Shearman -
Hakikur Rahman -
Hong Xue -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline Morris -
Joe Baptista -
Jorge Amodio -
Karl Auerbach -
McTim -
Patrick Vande Walle -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Rudi Vansnick -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Sébastien Bachollet -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vanda UOL