May 2007 - EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Public Comment Period opens on Telnic proposal to amend registry agreement for .TEL gTLD
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 15, 2007

May 15, 2007

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11may07.htm. ICANN Opens Comment Period on Telnic Proposal 11 May 2007 On 27 April 2007, ICANN posted for public information a proposal from Telnic Ltd., the sponsor of the .TEL top-level domain, to amend the .TEL Registry Agreement. Specifically, Telnic is seeking to alter the public display of Whois for TEL customers pursuant to Appendix S, Section VII of the .TEL Registry Agreement (http://www.icann.org/tlds/ agreements/tel/appendix-s-07apr06.htm#Part7). (Telnic intends to launch registry operations in late 2007/early 2008.) Telnic’s request states that they have been in communication with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office concerning Telnic’s current contractual obligations on Whois. However, there is no pending enforcement action against Telnic, therefore this is not a situation that would trigger the Draft ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois- privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm). In addition, this change is being proposed while discussion continues within the GNSO Policy Development Process on Whois. Telnic (and all gTLD registries) will be required to comply with new Whois consensus policy when approved by the Board. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/ registries/rsep/rsep.html), ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination period to determine whether the proposed service might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposed amendment does not raise such issues. The next step in evaluation is that (because implementation of the proposal would require a change to the .TEL Registry Agreement) ICANN will post the proposed amendment, solicit public comment and refer the proposal to the ICANN Board for consideration. A copy of the proposed amendment is available at http://www.icann.org/ tlds/agreements/tel/tel-amendment-30may07.pdf [PDF, 25K] and provides for changes to Appendix 1, Appendix 5 and Appendix S, Part VI of the .TEL Registry Agreement. The comments on the proposal may be submitted to registryservice(a)icann.orguntil 11 June 2007 23:59 UTC and may be viewed at http://forum.icannorg/lists/registryservice/. The process for considering new registry services is posted athttp:// www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html. All documentation regarding this proposed service and corresponding comment forum has been previously posted as part of the procedure at http://www.icann.org/ registries/rsep/#2007004. -- Patrick Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones(a)icann.org

1 0

Vote on ALS Applications
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 15, 2007

May 15, 2007

Dear All: Since queries have come in, be advised that the voting on the following applications has been held over for a few extra days to allow a few members of the ALAC who have been busy to cast their vote. We expect to be able to announce the results of the voting officially very shortly and on behalf of the ALAC, let me extend apologies to the applications who are waiting for the results: Alberta Community Network Association (ACNA) Association for Community Networking (AFCN) Slovenian Consumers Association (ZPS) Telecommunities Canada Consumers Protection Centre (KEPKA) EFN National Consumers' League Consumer Reports Webwatch Internauta Brasil ISOC Burundi -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 15, 2007

May 15, 2007

Dear Community: I believe the materials below will be of interest. Begin forwarded message: > From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> > Date: 15 May 2007 14:26:38 BDT > To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)spamcop.net> > Subject: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > > Attached are documents relating to Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > under consideration by the GNSO Council, which is discussing status > and next steps: > > 1) is the draft advisory, unchanged from last message in January. > <Draft-Transfer-Advisory-24jan07.doc> > > 2) is some notes on possible tighter wording/clarifications to the > existing policy. This consists of 4 points taken out of the previous > "policy issues" > list--all of these had to do with the reasons for denial section. > <DenialClarifications-28mar07.doc> > > 3) is a revised list of policy issues with the above-mentioned items > taken out. > <Draft-TransfersPolicyList-28mar07> > > > Please let me know if At-Large requires further information. > > Regards, > > Denise > > Denise Michel > Vice President, Policy Development > ICANN www.icann.org > denise.michel@icann.org

1 0

EURALO elections
by At Large Staff May 15, 2007

May 15, 2007

Please be advised that the election for ALAC candidates, board members and number of board seats will commence tomorrow, Wednesday 16th May, at noon UTC and will close at noon UTC on Sunday 20th May. The 16 agreed voters will receive an email later today with voting codes and access to the polls. Regards At-Large Staff

1 0

Some comments
by Vittorio Bertola May 14, 2007

May 14, 2007

All, I have been abroad for the last few days, and I have been trying for a while to find the time to draw some personal conclusions from the last days of discussions, before we actually get to the vote. I am somewhat concerned by how difficult it is for many people on the list to work together. I have been knowing most of the people in this group for many years now, and I know that, while they might differ in background, attitudes and views of the world, they are all very capable and brilliant. It is known that election time is never a good time to build consensus, but I really hope that, over time, we can build better reciprocal understanding, and remove this sense of "we against them" which makes it difficult to advance things. I was the one first proposing that we could adopt appointments by consensus, as other Regions did. I really believed that we could have reached agreement, but it turned out that there was little desire to do so, possibly as a consequence of the fact that different people have different concepts of diversity and balance, so what seemed balanced to me did not seem so to others. There's nothing bad in going to votes to solve these difference, but I urge everyone not to see these elections, however they go, in terms of "someone wins and someone loses". Personally, I have been working voluntarily for years to build this thing, viewing it as a huge online space for dialogue that could create connections among organizations so diverse - in many terms, such as internal culture, geography, objectives etc - that value and new brilliant ideas could arise from this melting pot. We live in a society where all cultures come in touch the one with the other, and learning to live together with new cultures is one of the top problems for many European countries. I really expect that we will enroll several more organizations in the future; this will require effort both in reaching out to them and in accommodating their views, but this effort will be rewarded by the incredible energy and progress that stems from networks when they grow. This is why, by the way, I want to continue being involved in the EURALO process, and I decided to put forward my name for the Board. It would be a pity if this became a small playground for a few known faces that have been involved in ICANN since its beginnings; we have to be open and inclusive and encourage many new faces to come on board. I also found many constructive messages on the list, and I really hope that, past the elections, we can start working together on actual policy objectives. I'm looking forward to that moment! Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Keep the documentation
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 14, 2007

May 14, 2007

With respect to the staff point: FYI, my view of the staff role is that we are agnostic with respect to policy. With respect to process, we have an obligation to ensure that processes are protected, and where developed by the community, ensure equal access, transparenc, and respect for a rules-based framework for interaction in which every stakeholder is on an equal footing with every other. To that end, you have and will see periodic interventions about process and procedure, and sometimes suggestion of a new process or procedure in order to provide further avenues for the community to engage on issues or to solve a problem which the current process seems inadequate to facilitate. As to what policy to debate, and what to say, on this I have no views - not only as staff, but generally personally as well, though my personal views are effectively nil as it is my job to help you put yours forward, not to have any of my own put forward. On 13/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > On 2007-05-11 08:12:29 -0700, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > > From the attitude point of view, what is appalling, looking from > > the outside, is how a couple of people have inherited the Jeff > > William syndrome, > > *snip* > > If there's anything that this discussion shows, then it's a total > lack of willingness to build a compromise solution in the face of > differences of opinion, and some worrying lack of neutrality on the > staff side. > > The fact that you have nothing better to do than pull the Jeff > Williams card speaks more (and quite disappointingly so!) to your > ability to be objective, show leadership, and respect different > opinions, than it speaks to the RALO's functioning overall. > > (Though I'll admit that one conclusion that one might draw from this > entire debacle is that the RALO structure as such is neither > functional, nor robust. One of the underlying reasons for the > hesitation to sign the MoU on FITUG's behalf is that I was > struggling whether I should recommend returning the ALS > accreditation right away.) > > Regards, > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] ALAC
by Adam Peake May 12, 2007

May 12, 2007

Sebastian and Patrick: you both represent ISOC chapters, seem very active and "senior" within ISOC's European chapter organization generally. ISOC's policy for chapters <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/policy/> requires them to show some general level of support for the goals and mission of ISOC. Policy states "Specific officials of Chapters, acting on behalf of their Chapter, may make public statements and establish public positions as long as they meet the following requirement" and "b. They must not be contrary to any position of the Internet Society." Do you foresee any situation where your chapter's (i.e. ALS's) obligations to ISOC would require you to put ISOC's interests ahead of the EU RALO and or ALAC? For example, one could imagine situations where an ISOC position was contrary to that of the EU RALO and/or ALAC, or more extreme, perhaps some discussion regarding ISOC's contractual relationships with ICANN as the steward and beneficiary of .ORG? Where would your obligations lie? Apologies if this question is re-hashing an old discussion about ISOC chapters and ALAC, I haven't seen it if it is. Seems important particularly if two people from the same type of ALS are selected for ALAC. Thanks, Adam

6 11

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 11, 2007

May 11, 2007

Verner: There are two problems with this: 1) The process of how to vote was agreed in Lisbon, so unless 2/3 of the ALSes intervene to reverse that decision, there is no grounds to reconsider, more than six weeks after the event. 2) Nothing would prevent you from noting preferences for only one, or two, out of the three, and not setting a second or a third preference. So, the effect you might achieve would be the same. On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann(a)datenschutzverein.de> wrote: > Hello Nick, > > there is a difference if all voters have two possible votes or if the > voters have to rank all three candidates. If I have two possible votes, > I can also vote only for one candidate and let my secend vote unused. > > Kind Regards, > > Werner > > Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb: > > Verner, and all: > > > > Could we please, instead of trying to find things to object to, try > > and find things to agree on. > > > > To repeat: there is no difference in the outcome whether one ranks > > three candidates, or whether you dispose of two individual votes for a > > candidate of three. > > > > HOWEVER: insisting on changing everything because one or two > > individuals want to change what was agreed by a much larger group of > > ALSes in Lisbon is basically the same as suggesting that any one ALS > > can veto any decision reached by a much larger group of ALSes. > > > > This would result in nothing ever being achieved. > > > > On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann(a)datenschutzverein.de> > > wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> my first question: "noon UTC" is 1 pm GMT? > >> > >> For the ALAC-Seats the rankingsystems makes for me no sense and it seems > >> to be not democratical for such a few seats to elecect. Therefor we > >> should use for the election of the ALAC-Seats tweo possible Votes for > >> each voter. > >> > >> Greatings, > >> > >> Werner > >> > >> Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb: > > > #################################################### > Vorratsdatenspeicherung? Nein Danke! - Noch ist es > nicht zu spät: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de > #################################################### > > -- > > Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann > Vorstandsmitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Obere Laube 48 - D-78462 Konstanz > Tel.: 07531 / 365905-6 Mobil: 0179 / 46 86 484 > E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.dehttp://www.datenschutzverein.de > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 3

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 11, 2007

May 11, 2007

I stand corrected - I was not in the meeting where the final voting procedure was adopted so my apologies. If all were to be ranked, then that is what we must stick with. On 11/05/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > 2) Nothing would prevent you from noting preferences for only one, or > > two, out of the three, and not setting a second or a third preference. > > So, the effect you might achieve would be the same. > > First, let me state that I do not like this voting system at all. > However, this was what was adopted in Lisbon by a meeting where most > ALSes were present, including Christoph and Wolfgang (so not just ISOC > chapters), so I think that, for the sake of closing this painful process > which reminds me of the worst days of icannatlarge.com, we'd better live > with it for the time being. > > However, and this was discussed in Lisbon, there is a requirement that > you rank ALL candidates. This is because, with this system, the best > candidates are the ones whose sum of rankings is the lowest. So for > example in this case: > > Voter 1: 1. Candidate A, 2. Candidate B, 3. Candidate C > Voter 2: 1. Candidate B, 2. Candidate C, 3. Candidate A > > the final result would be: > > 1. Candidate B = 3 points > 2. Candidate A = 4 points > 3. Candidate C = 5 points > > However, if Voter 2 did not rank Candidate A (possibly because he/she > thinks that A is a really bad person), and only stated two preferences, > A would not get points and so the result would be: > > 1. Candidate A = 1 point > 2. Candidate B = 4 points > 3. Candidate C = 5 points > > which is the exact opposite of what Voter 2 would have liked to get. > > This is why there is the need to rank all candidates, none excluded... > so that the ones you really don't like get a lot of points from you and > sink down the list :-) > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

ISOC launches Call for PIR Board Member Nominations
by Patrick Vande Walle May 11, 2007

May 11, 2007

This may be of interest fro some of you. Please distribute as you see fit. Full text at http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/070511.shtml The Internet Society (ISOC) seeks a maximum of three highly qualified individuals to serve on the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) for the period 2008-2010. PIR’s business is managing an international registry of .org domain names. The Board meets in person 3-4 times per year. The time commitment is approximately 14-18 full days per year plus additional phone calls and e-mail. Qualifications sought include: * Demonstrated business acumen with significant entrepreneurial, non-commercial and/or marketing skills; * understanding and engagement in the retail domain name space; * known contributor to the ICANN <http://www.icann.org> processes; * financial literacy; * expertise in the application of Internet technologies to support non-commercial organizations; and * experience with the operation and policies of TLD registries. Global diversity in candidates is desired. Please forward a statement of interest and qualifications, three references, and a curriculum vitae highlighting relevant experience, expertise, and contact information to: Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO, Internet Society Email: pir-nomcomm(a)isoc.org <mailto:pir-nomcomm@isoc.org>. Please submit materials in attached documents (pdf, .doc, .txt) For full consideration, please apply by June 11th, 2007. Applications will be evaluated as they are received.

1 0