- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

FW: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: alac review]] by Jeanette Hofmann
by At-Large Staff July 1, 2008

July 1, 2008

Mail by Jeanette Hofmann for the EURALO discuss list, forwarded by Staff. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review] Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:06:16 +0100 From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> To: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Hi, I agree with Heike. It would be good to have a statement that challenges the report on methodological grounds. A second part of a statement could list a few goals we would like to see achieved in the context of the JPA termination. jeanette Heike Jensen wrote: > Thanks for posting the notes, Bill, but is that really the latest version? I > thought that you had reworked the text to make it more coherent? The below, > I think, is hard to understand for people who were not present at the > meeting. > > A point that I would like to reiterate in terms of our approach to the > review is that I think it would be important to distinguish between content > (are they suggesting what we would like them to suggest?) and methodology > (does their review make sense, and do they arrive at their conclusions in a > logical manner?). I think our criticism is most credible when concerned with > the latter. As for the former, I think we need to discuss whether we would > like to reiterate our suggestions, but in any case they should be clearly > set apart from our methodological critique. > > Heike > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Drake" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > To: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:00 AM > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review > > > Hi, > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Wolf Ludwig > <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> wrote: > >> I agree with Vittorio that it would be much easier - especially for those >> who haven't >> been in Paris - to have some starting points already (otherwise it would >> habe been >> rather useless to sit together in Paris for almost two hours). We could >> use the "starting >> points" as a basis for further considerations and suggestions on the list. > > Ok then, by popular demand, below are the notes I received on the > initial discussion. I've left them in their raw state---there are > some general cross-cutting points about overall thrust and balance and > the target audience (believe we settled on the board wg) followed by > issue-specific points grouped under the section headings of the draft > summary report. Perhaps as a first step people could read the full > draft report and then provide any comments using these headings for > easy identification. After everything's on the table a few of us > could form a drafting group to massage the inputs into an integrated > text. I'll volunteer to be part of that group. > >> I suggest that afterwards we give about 10-14 days for discussion >> to come up with a consolidated and final EURALO Statement >> around 15 July. > > Some time is needed between discussion/inputs and production of a > statement, so unless there's some urgency relating to the board > wg/Westlake production schedule I'd suggest we think in terms of the > week of the 21st for the latter. If others will be in Meissen for > Wolfgang's Internet governance summer school, we could even finalize > in person. And of course the resulting text should be cleared through > list before sending it off. In any event, since this will be Euralo's > first substantive output we should ensure we get the process right and > help set a foundation for future work. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > ------------ > > Express concerns: > Staff several layers of indirectness > Budget independence > Positive, points we agree with > What should have been looked at > Giving some recommendations > Individual memberships > Participation of users > Voting rights on supporting organizations (gnso) and board > Surprise about statements the range is not wide ahistorical > > Who to address: > The Westlake group? > The Board? > > > Process: > Conflict of interests the very staff who is responsible > > You did not examine the role of staff: > > The procedure of the selection of the reviewer was not transparent. > > Although the review was mandated by the bylaws, the date of reviewing > was unlucky because it reviewed the interim alac. > > 1. The way the contract was done. > 2. Allocation in management of the contract > 3. Timing of the report (mandated by bylaws) > 4. Relationship to staff dependency conflict of interests > 5. Not everyone has been interviewed > 6. Skope: Terms of reference > > Assessment of key factors affecting alac s effectiveness: > Staff, > History, individual membership > Constitutional question of role of alac > At-Large structure participation > Democratizing icann > Budget > Focus on the committee itself > The skope is weak in terms analyzing of the relationship of the > committee board and constituent membership at-large > > Promote web > Did they not get it by accident or did they not get it because they > were instructed to not get it. > > Introduction: > Procedural points: > > History of the ALAC starts in 1999. That means you cannot look at the > ALAC without looking at the At-Large. > > Purpose of alac > The good part of the review is they mention accountability of icann > Give representation of the users in icann > Terms of reference > > Structural options: > The range of options considered where at some place excentric, and > other options promoting the bottom up involvement of users (which make > more sense were not mentioned.) > They should be transparent about the options chosen from the data they > collected. As it is clear that other options have been mentioned. > > > Geography: > Positive, that they looked at the population and to find a way of good > user´s representation. > It would be adv > Problem of pure numeric representation should be mentioned. > Different cultures, languages, political structures. > A very non-scientific approach. Methodologically unsophisticated. > Resolution premature, and it would be best to take that issue up in > icanns larger regional represantation. > No reference had been made to former studies on geographic regional > representation (sub-organisations). > > Future developments of growing number of ALSes were not taken into account. > > > ALAC influence: > Ok > > Board liaison: > Voting: We find that the logic is amusing/ flawed. If having a vote > hampers consensus building on the board than all of the stakeholders > should > All board members should be treated equally > A vote on the board > While we understand the concern that giving a vote to a committee that > might change its status of the ALAC this will not change the procedure > of consensus building. > The gac was offered voting rights, they did not want. > (Later: maybe a clear statement: We would like to have it.) > > The quote: "`to act in what [directors] reasonably believe ar the best > interests of ICANN and not as.`" > > Secondly we find the conclusion that giving alac a vote would dilute > rather than increase its influence because of the duty to serve the > interest of Icann > Is based on a false dichotomy. > Alac members are fully invested in ICANN's mission and tasks. There is > no contradiction between serving ICANN's interests and representing At > Large interests. > We support the suggestion to allocate staff support on a regional > basis. The effectiveness of staff support is more depend on quality > than quantity. In addition, we have further observations. > 1. The consultant should review the processes of appointing staff for > ALAC and RALOs to see whether those processes are in line with the > goal to create a supporting structure for ALAC and REALOS. > 2. The consultant should look into the matter of budget allocation and > particularly review the procedure of decision making to allocate the > budget and investigate whether those structures allows ALAC and RALOs > to fulfill their function. > > Due to the late delivery of the report, there was no time to consult > with all of our members. For this reason, we reserve the right to > prepare further statements in the next few days. > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… .org > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… .org > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Bulgaria moves to register Cyrillic Internet domain
by Dessi Pefeva July 1, 2008

July 1, 2008

I am happy to announce that the Bulgarian government has shown officially its intent to register the .?? (.bg in Cyrillic) domain. They did it in a letter, sent yesterday to ICANN's President Paul Twomey. This is due also thanks to the efforts of ISOC-Bulgaria. Bulgarian President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and the Minister of ITC are all members of ISOC. They have talked on a number of times in the past six months with ISOC.bg on these issues. Obviously the conversations have been fruitful. See more information here: http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKL2360195920080623 And this is the official press-release from the ITC Agency: Bulgaria has requested the registration of a Cyrillic top level domain (TLD) from _ICANN_ <http://www.icann.org/>. The letter from the chairman of the Bulgarian State Agency for Information Technologies and Communicatoins (_SAITC_ <http://www.daits.government.bg/>) Plamen Vatchkov to the president of ICANN Paul Twomey was delivered today, June 23^rd , 2008, in Paris via the Bulgarian representative to the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN, and was distributed for information only in Geneva where the ITU is headquartered. Thus Bulgaria requested the fast track for implementation of its own Cyrillic IDNs. In the letter to the ICANN President, the SAITC chairman informs the authoritative international organization, dealing with assigned names and numbers, that Bulgaria has decided to register and maintain the country code .?? (bg in Cyrillic) Further in the letter, SAITC chairman informs that the discussion on using Cyrillic domain names was initiated by the President of Bulgaria Georgi Parvanov during the visit of the Russian President Putin and the then vice-prime minister, and now President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev during their visit in January 2008 in Sofia. The question was also discussed during meetings of Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev with the Russian counterparts, as well as during talks between foreign ministers Ivailo Kalfin and Sergei Lavrov. Last week, Russian President Medvedev announced in Moscow, that the issue of Cyrillic domain names is an important one, and on his political agenda. "We believe that the initiative, which we discussed with our Russian friends in the last months, is a clear fact about the importance which Bulgaria has in the world Internet. It is an example not only about the historical meaning of the Cyrillic alphabet in the world arena, but also about the fact that through Bulgaria it became an official alphabet of the European Union. By sending this letter to Dr. Twomey -- ICANN's president and my friend, SAITC expresses not only the wish, but the readiness to put the Cyrillic IDNs on the Internet map", says Plamen Vatchkov. "There's nothing more natural than the proposed domain to be the country code, which is already known and accepted in the country itself. Creating domains in scripts, different from the Latin, is the next big step in the development of the Internet, which will allow millions of people who don't use English to have easier access to the Global Net resources". SAITC is organizing a meeting later this year in Sofia, where all countries, using Cyrillic will be invited - Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Mongolia, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. The meeting will be dedicated to discussion about IDNs. for more information: Press Center phone +359-2-9492368 "Ekaterina Popova" <epopova(a)daits.government.bg <mailto:epopova@daits.government.bg>> /Ms. Dessi Pefeva, Internet Society - Bulgaria/

2 2

Re: [EURO-Discuss] user_s summit 2009 and icann committment to be user oriented
by Annette Muehlberg July 1, 2008

July 1, 2008

hi werner, yes, this allows us to be better prepared and anyhow i think that in mexico the conditions for running such a summit are much better. and of course, i am also counting on our latin american friends to be just wonderful hosts. best annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.)" <huelsmann(a)datenschutzverein.de> > Gesendet: 26.06.08 20:47:55 > An: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] user_s summit 2009 and icann committment to be user oriented > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hallo liebe Annette, > > Annette Muehlberg schrieb: > > | We finally made it and will be able to organize a userŽs summit in > | Mexico, March 2009! > > Der Usersummit wird also vom angedachten Termin im November 2008 in > Kairo auf den März 2009 in Mexico verschoben? > > Das finde ich grundsätzlich in Ordnung. Denn es wäre sicher schwierig > gewesen den US (blöde Abkürzung :-) ) in nur vier Monaten zu organisieren. > > Liebe Grüße, > > Werner > > > #################################################### > 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(a)datenschutzverein.de > http://www.datenschutzverein.de > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIY+Q7M1J18ejmiesRAkwLAJ4qywwFXEHCGT6q9Jspz3mf7N5nSQCgjAFP > Oe6ObyxT4sLupegKGOz8SaA= > =D34t > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > --

1 0

alac review
by Annette Muehlberg June 30, 2008

June 30, 2008

All, Regarding the ALAC review, we are working in Paris on a draft for a statement from EURALO which we will post on the list. Meanwhile I want to let you know that theNARALO has already been working on such a statement. This is its latest draft. Best greetings Annette *** NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. We believe that the ALAC Review process has been flawed from the very start of its process, and has produced recommendations which serve neither the multi-stakeholder goals of ICANN nor the needs of its at-large community. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak, opposing the recommendations of the Nominating Committee's own review. In rejecting the consultants' report, ALAC must offer creative and viable alternative recommendations which would increase accountability. while enhancing the bi-directional communications required between ICANN and its global grassroots communuty. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.

10 28

user_s summit 2009 and icann committment to be user oriented
by Annette Muehlberg June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

All, We finally made it and will be able to organize a userŽs summit in Mexico, March 2009! I think it would be great if we could make sure, that the userŽs summit will not be something seperated from the ICANN Meeting. Instead, ICANN should show its committment to strengthen its bottom up structure and be user oriented in all its policies. For the public discussion my proposal is, to approach all icann bodies - such as the board, various committees, the advisory councils, the ICANN supporting organisations and their constituencies as well as icann staff. We should ask them - throughout the whole icann meetings whenever they give a public presentations - to explain what the respective issues/ policy proposals mean for the internet end-user. I think implementing such a procedure would be a great step forward. Best greetings and many thanks to all, who have been working very hard to make the summit possible. Annette

3 2

Report of the EURALO General Assembly
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Dear All: It is my pleasure to inform you that you will find the Report of the EURALO GA linked to the homepage of EURALO at www.euralo.org and attached. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 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

Novotel & Internet Access
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Dear All: For those who may not have heard, the Internet is included as previously stated, and you will not be charged for the Internet. If they try, refuse to let them charge you and tell them to call Michael Evans at +1 310 779 2445 or Stacy Hoffberg at +1 310 266 2288. The hotel knows both Michael and Stacy very well as they are the two members of staff who made the hotel arrangements. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 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

3 5

Re: [EURO-Discuss] alac review
by Vittorio Bertola June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

JFC Morfin ha scritto: > PS. I expect Westlake to lurke on this list? I don't think so, but if anyone wants to have an exchange of views with Westlake and/or the Review WG, we are available right now - until 11am - in the Hemingway room, and tomorrow 10:00-12:00 somewhere in the foyer. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

EURALO meeting tomorrow
by Wolf Ludwig June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

Dear all, as discussed with some of the Paris EURALO attendees in the couloirs, we should sit together and discuss / draft urgent agenda issues like -Draft of EURALO statement on the ALAC Review, -other Outreach / activities etc. Therefore I suggest to meet tomorrow morning – as tomorrow’s AM programme is not overloaded yet. What’s about the following options: Wednesday, 25 June, 9.30 AM, Wednesday, 25 June, 10.00 AM, Wednesday, 25 June, 10.30 AM, in the Meridien / Conf. lobby. Please let me know your preferences ASAP! I will check for a meeting room where we can sit together. Thanks for your replies. Best, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

4 4

FW: alac review mail from jeanette
by Annette Muehlberg June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

hi, jeanetteŽs mail did not get through to the list, so i forward it to you. maybe mathias could check and try to get jeanette on the list again. greetings annette > Hi all, > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Just my two cents, as a person who's been seeing how this statement is > > being received: I think it's the wrong kind of statement to make; > > > I agree with Dominic and Wolfgang. I think it is exactly the right > statement to make. > it > > sounds like "three days after the first draft of the report, since it > > doesn't give us 100% of what we wanted, > > I am not sure you understand what ALAC wants, Vittorio. This is not a > matter of 100% or even 50%, the portray of ALAC as such is flawed. > > My impression at yesterday's meeting was that the consultant hasn't > understood enough of ICANN's overall structure to see and evaluate ALAC > and relation to that structure. > > I support a statement that rejects the report and asks for a new one. > jeanette > > we're ready to conclude that it > > is unacceptable in its entirety, and by the way you're all corrupt, you > > owe obedience to us and we call for a revolt against you". I assume that > > this is a common tone for statements in the US, but IMHO here it is > > unlikely to be very well received or even considered - its only result > > (as we saw yesterday) will be to put your interlocutors in defensive mode. > > > > If *RALO thinks that there are factual errors or omissions in the > > report, it should submit a written comment to the reviewers specifying > > where are the errors and providing facts to support the claim. The > > NARALO statement doesn't do any of that. Apart from that, the reviewers > > are independent and are free to conclude whatever they deem fit, others > > are free to disagree but challenging their legitimacy or honesty won't > > fly very well, and won't get them to change their report. > > > > Alternatively, a statement to the Review WG focusing on suggestions for > > the way forward - what to do with the report, and why certain parts > > could be ignored or considered under a different light - is appropriate, > > but perhaps it is even too early for that, as the initial draft > > recommendations of the WG won't be out before Cairo. In any case, any > > constructive suggestion regarding how to go forward (including requests > > about how to address the issues that many people care about, but that > > clearly don't pertain to an ALAC review) would be much more useful and > > productive. > > > > Ciao, > --

4 4