Thanks for your questions and comments, Bill. Having a closer look at their application form and the website, you will see that dotHIV is a non-for profit association as well promoting sensitisation, networking and inclusion of those target groups. They work with other relevant groups in the field but are specialized on Internet issues. According to their application form (and what I discussed with Carolin Silbernagl, the person in-charge), what you call a "TLD operator" is a small side initiative of their activities. Actually, they applied as a non-profit association in a non-commercial capacity -- otherwise your comments would be applicable. Best, Wolf William Drake wrote Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:49:

Hi

This is a good initiative. But I can't help wondering---are we really going to start including TLD operators in At Large? We all know the established lines are going to be challenged and at times blurred in the new gTLD age and what this may mean for GNSO, CCNSO, etc. But isn't suppliers in the users box a step to far, like putting commercial orgs into noncomm bodies...

Are they not applying to the Registry Constituency?

Bill

On Dec 18, 2012, at 22:02, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:

...

Dear all,

as you may have noted, we received a new ALS application from dotHIV based in Germany / Berlin and Staff has conducted the usual DD procedure -- see attached. We are now asked for our regional advice.

And as we usually proceed: If NO objections are raised on this list regarding this application until Friday, 21 December 2012, the regional advise will be positive = to approve the applicant from our side.

Thanks for your consideration and kind regards, Wolf

Silvia Vivanco wrote Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:03:

...

Dear Wolf and Oksana,

On the 19.11 we received a EURALO ALS application dot.HIV. Please find the Due Diligence form attached.

We kindly ask you to provide us with the regional advice for this ALS in your capacity as EURALO Secretary. Your advice will support the ALAC review on this application.

According to our timeline for ALS applications the due date for the regional advice is on Dec 21st 2012.

We would like to remind you that the DD form could contain sensitive information. Please read the form carefully before sending it off to third parties.

Regards,

Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011

EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig <DD form dot HIV.doc> <dotHIV_als-application-form (2).doc> _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

Hi On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Bill, You are raising an interesting point. There are two parts in a registry: the policy manager and the operator. My view is that the operator belongs to the registry constituency, while the policy manager belongs to whatever constituency or group it would naturally fit. However, this is not the current approach of ICANN, therefore we could have such conflicts. You do remember the discussions about the GNSO review. In that circumstance I tried to explain my concept of stakeholder group as a system where we could expand participation and widen the points of view and contributions. I made the example of a company where the legal department could contribute to the IP constituency, the research department to a possible technical research constituency, the marketing department to the business constituency, and so on, enriching the global contribution to the ICANN policy making process.

So now we're disaggregating organizations to fit the boxes? Even though the departments are part of a unified entity/mission? I dunno…you're a more postmodern thinker than I, I guess.

If this approach is taken, there will be no problem in accepting the application. Otherwise, we need to have the opinion of the General Counsel about the potential conflict of interest.

Well certainly in GNSO land and for the board the question of where these applicants go is a bit vexing and will require some clear guidelines. I never heard At Large mentioned as an option, so this presents an interesting test to think about. On Dec 19, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:

Thanks for your questions and comments, Bill. Having a closer look at their application form and the website, you will see that dotHIV is a non-for profit association as well promoting sensitisation, networking and inclusion of those target groups. They work with other relevant groups in the field but are specialized on Internet issues. According to their application form (and what I discussed with Carolin Silbernagl, the person in-charge), what you call a "TLD operator" is a small side initiative of their activities. Actually, they applied as a non-profit association in a non-commercial capacity -- otherwise your comments would be applicable.

It's not obvious to me why their non-profit status matters. From an ICANN standpoint, they are applicants to operate a gTLD, that's why they're here. This is a good one to chew on, might be worth taking the discussion to a broader level… Bill

Thanks, Bill, I like to be considered "postmodern" ;>) The point is not "disaggregating organizations to fit the boxes", but from my point of view to frame the boxes in the best way to optimize contribution. I can hardly think of organizations that have hundreds of thousands of employees and presence in all continents (or ICANN regions) where the point of view can be summarized by one contribution in one single "box". To make a practical example, how can the IP lawyers of, say, IBM, bring their views in ICANN if they are allowed only to be in the business constituency? And then, if they run a TLD, must they withdraw from BC or abstain from applying as registry? How can ICANN take benefit from the ideas that come from the different souls of, let's say, Google or Microsoft, if we need to frame the whole company to be in just one single box? I know it is a difficult issue, but I am just wondering what would be the best approach for making ICANN more inclusive of all opinions. Back to the practical problem at hand, can we for instance accept the new ALS, requiring that they recuse themselves from participating in issues related to registry and registrar operations? Cheers, R. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di William Drake Inviato: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 18:04 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Cc: 'At-Large Staff' Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: WG: Regional Advice requested. Association Dot. HIV 173 / Germany Hi On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Bill, You are raising an interesting point. There are two parts in a registry: the policy manager and the operator. My view is that the operator belongs to the registry constituency, while the policy manager belongs to whatever constituency or group it would naturally fit. However, this is not the current approach of ICANN, therefore we could have such conflicts. You do remember the discussions about the GNSO review. In that circumstance I tried to explain my concept of stakeholder group as a system where we could expand participation and widen the points of view and contributions. I made the example of a company where the legal department could contribute to the IP constituency, the research department to a possible technical research constituency, the marketing department to the business constituency, and so on, enriching the global contribution to the ICANN policy making process.

So now we're disaggregating organizations to fit the boxes? Even though the departments are part of a unified entity/mission? I dunno…you're a more postmodern thinker than I, I guess.

If this approach is taken, there will be no problem in accepting the application. Otherwise, we need to have the opinion of the General Counsel about the potential conflict of interest.

Well certainly in GNSO land and for the board the question of where these applicants go is a bit vexing and will require some clear guidelines. I never heard At Large mentioned as an option, so this presents an interesting test to think about. On Dec 19, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:

Thanks for your questions and comments, Bill. Having a closer look at their application form and the website, you will see that dotHIV is a non-for profit association as well promoting sensitisation, networking and inclusion of those target groups. They work with other relevant groups in the field but are specialized on Internet issues. According to their application form (and what I discussed with Carolin Silbernagl, the person in-charge), what you call a "TLD operator" is a small side initiative of their activities. Actually, they applied as a non-profit association in a non-commercial capacity -- otherwise your comments would be applicable.

It's not obvious to me why their non-profit status matters. From an ICANN standpoint, they are applicants to operate a gTLD, that's why they're here. This is a good one to chew on, might be worth taking the discussion to a broader level… Bill _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

Season's Greetings Our sincere wishes for a happy, peaceful and creative 2013 On behalf of the board of KEPKA, Yours sincerely, On behalf of the Board Nikolaos Tsemperlidis Evangelia Kekeleki President KEPKA Member of Economic and Social Council of Greece Alternate Member of EESC General Secretary KEPKA, Vice President Single Market Observatory Member EESC Member ECCG, KEPKA - Consumers Protection Centre, 32 Vas. Irakliou Str. - GR 54624 - Thessaloniki, Phone: +302310233333 - Fax: +302310242211, email: consumers@kepka.org http://www.kepka.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Contact TaC" <contact@againstcybercrime.eu> To: "'Discussion for At-Large Europe'" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "'At-Large Staff'" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:42 PM Subject: [EURO-Discuss] Best wishes! Dear all, Just to wish you all the best during the festive season and best wishes for the coming new year. We hope continuing our collaboration, On behalf of TaC, Yuliya Morenets --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org