February 2014 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

translation and transliteration of contact information
by Mike O'Connor March 7, 2014

March 7, 2014

hi all, i’m responding to Wolf-Ulrich’s request for thoughts on this topic — mostly by starting this thread on our list. i have to admit i’m pretty clueless about this issue so view these comments as the ravings of the Village Idiot, Wolf-Ulrich it seems to me that maybe a way to carve a middle ground is for registry/registrars to provide the *opportunity* for registrants to enter *their own* translated/transliterated information in a non-latin script if they so choose. it seems that might address both the problem of accuracy (which seems really hard if it’s done by machine) and cost (since the burden of data entry and accuracy would remain with the registrant and all the R’s would have to do is provide data-collection and display mechanisms — essentially extending Whois data to cover optional scripts). i think the notion of having the Ry/Rr doing the translating/transliterating is going to be really hard for them to do accurately, and that the cost of that effort would be prohibitive. the question of *requiring* the registrant to enter information into a non-Latin script is interesting/complicated, especially if they’re not familiar with the language/script. it seems this project is dependent on the outcome of the EWG and the subsequent PDP to a certain extent. how can this PDP really make solid recommendations without knowing what the capabilities of the underlying registrant data system will be? it seems as though this effort will be hampered by that. it seems as though this project will also run into “universal acceptance” type problems until the transition from current Whois to The Next Thing is complete — so an aggressive implementation schedule seems complicated see? ravings of an idiot. but maybe that’s enough to get conversation started. does that help, Wolf-Ulrich? mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Workshop on Name Collision, March 2014
by WUKnoben March 4, 2014

March 4, 2014

Hi, is this Workshop of interest for us? Will anybody attend? http://namecollisions.net/ Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 2

question: the RSSAC is meeting at the Singapore meeting -- should we try to invite them to our session?
by Mike O'Connor March 4, 2014

March 4, 2014

there was a brief mention on today’s Council call that the RSSAC is going to be meeting at the Singapore ICANN meeting. - they will be having a public session (not yet scheduled, but i’ll try to highlight it when it is) - would it be a good idea to see if they would like to join us during our Tuesday session, or some other time? mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panels - Draft Reports
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 28, 2014

Feb. 28, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panels - Draft Reports > Date: February 28, 2014 at 12:56:26 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb14-en.htm > > WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panels – Draft Reports > 28 February 2014 > Join the Strategy Panel Chairs for an update and interactive discussion. > > Date: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 > Time: 15:00-16:30 UTC (time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICANN+Strategy+Pan…) > > Vint Cerf, Nii Quaynor, Beth Noveck and Paul Mockapetris invite you to join them on Tuesday, 11 March at 15:00-16:30 UTC (time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICANN+Strategy+Pan…) for an overview of the draft recommendations and report they respectively released earlier this month for public comment: > > ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem – Draft Report [PDF, 2.14 MB]; > Public Responsibility Framework – Draft Report; > ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation – Draft Report [PDF, 424 KB] (Proposals compiled here); > Identifier Technology Innovation – Draft Report [PDF, 1.76 MB]. > The Strategy Panels serve as an integral part of a framework for cross-community dialogue on strategic matters. Advisory in nature, ICANN Strategy Panels' quintessential objective is to inform and support the development of ICANN's new, overarching vision and five-year strategic plan. > > The Chairs wish to walk you through their panel's preliminary recommendations and to seek your input, as panels fine-tune their report and bring their work to a conclusion. This webinar will also be an opportunity for you to ask questions. Your feedback and contributions are key to this project and will be carefully considered. Note that panels also welcome input sent via their publicly archived mailing lists (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategy-panels-25feb14-en.htm for full reference). Comments are invited through 30 April 2014. > > Webinar Details > > The webinar will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. The session will be conducted in English. > > Participants will be given the opportunity to offer comments and to ask questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. > > Please register via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org by Monday, 10 March 2014 – 23:59 UTC to receive the dial-in details. A reminder with log-in and dial-in details will be sent to you prior to the call. > > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Notes from today's GNSO Council call
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 27, 2014

Feb. 27, 2014

hi all, here are my notes from the Council call today. disclaimer — these are my notes and may contain errors of fact or understanding. if something in here makes you unhappy, check with me or the person before taking extreme action. :-) also note that item 6 and item 4 were reversed on the agenda, which is why these notes are not in strictest numeric sequence. mikey Council call - 27-Feb 2014 +- Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 1.1 Roll Call +- 1.2 Statement of interest updates Maria Farrell ~ https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Maria+Farrell+SOI 1.3 Review/amend agenda +- 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meetings 23 January 2014 were posted as approved on 17 February 2014. +- Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of Projects List and Action List. +- Comments or questions arising. Action: note a diary entry to review the list prior to each meeting - and forward to the ISPCP list Item 3: Consent agenda (0 mins) +- Item 4: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GNSO Engagement with the work of the ICANN Strategy Panels (15 mins) +- Here the Council will receive an update on any relevant interaction with and output from the strategy panels and discuss any appropriate action going forward. +- Update: +- Strat Panels are out for comment ~ icann.org > En > News > Public-comment > Strategy-panels-25feb14-en ~ icann.org > En > News > Announcements > Announcement-2-25feb14-en Fadi's recent update to AC/SO chairs -- on role panels and their role in the strategy process -- concern about top-down was discussed +- MSI panel -- +- 16 proposals (here's a link to my little matrix of the proposals -- arrayed by Goal <--> Tool and Participation <--> Policy) ~ haven2.com > Wp-content > Uploads > 2007 > 07 > PDP-Overview-GAC-GNSO-v5 +- Jonathan has reached out -- got off to a bit of a slow start -- but meetings 2 weeks ago and yesterday +- flag waving - we're the Council and the GNSO - your work feels as though it overlaps our remit - so we are very tuned to you work Novak offered to do some kind of interview -- Jonathan was uncomfortable +- Yesterday's meeting working toward a meeting with 1/2 members of the staff (govLab) people in singapore opportunity to home in on a subset of the recommendations that are more closely related to the policy work of the GNSO +- 2 issues +- "top down" concern Jonathan: best aimed at Fadi not the MSI panel +- Discussion +- Berard +- "this is something we need to talk about" reenforces the "executivification" of ICANN -- it's really hard for a part time person to stay above the raging water -- the community is becoming more professional -- this is driving some of our community members mad -- the more we can do to foster discussion at the broadest level in the community, the better Jonathan shares concern over the raging water Jonathan emphasises distinction between MSI content and MSI chartering +- Amr +- commisioning is very top down -- there is a lot of work going on -- that's where the changes would have to be reviewed doesn't feel quite as concerned as others are +- Jonathan - we have the opportunity to engage -- maybe a written response to the panel from the council reaction to their work AND work that the GNSO is doing +- Stoll +- we need to inform them to alert them to overlaps AND we need to inform administration of concerns directly comments seem to go into a black hole be careful in the engagement +- Chiao volunteers -- substantial proportion of cycles going to IG issue registries -- implementation requirements, additional load of IG work -- overloaded is not just limited to volunteers in non-contracted parties. Ry's and Rr's are struggling to keep up with implementation requirements in addition to policy-making and IG discussion. Very hard, especially for smaller registries. +- ICANN is now representing all of our voices -- will people outside of ICANN have a chance to talk with the community directly? Is ICANN trying to represent us, rather than letting that conversation take place directly? maybe it's time for constituencies to step out +- Greimann topics are very worthwhile -- also helpful to have an outside voice -- however i think this effort should have come in the ICANN way -- thus they have a bit of a birth defect because of the way they were launched -- we shouldn't be deferential, give advice, should be seen as comparable to the GAC +- Greenberg MSI - remember they were put in place to comment on the *whole* MS model, not just GNSO -- their remit is broader - they were asked to suggest changes - informed process -- they DID suggest changes and we need to embrace/refine their suggestions without appearing defensive +- Followup Jonathan will follow up with Theresa about how we can best interact with these panels +- Item 5: UPDATE – PDP Working Group on Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information (10 mins) The GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. As part of its efforts to obtain broad input from the ICANN Community at an early stage of its deliberations, the Working Group has requested input from the Supporting Organizations (including the GNSO) and Advisory Committees on several questions relating to the issues identified in the PDP Final Issue Report. +- 5.1 – Update (Ching Chiao) presented by Chris Dillon - cochair +- request for input - deadline is tomorrow https://community.icann.org/x/FTR-Ag +- 5.2 – Discussion +- Chiao - thanks Chris, encourages comments from constituencies Action: remind ISPCP of need for input 5.3 – Next steps +- Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – International Internet Governance Issues (20 mins) Discussions and activity relating to international Internet Governance issues are attracting a great deal of attention in ICANN and related groups. This item is on the agenda to provide an opportunity for discussion within the Council about how this impacts the role and work of the Council and mindful of the scope and remit of the Council, what action the Council should or could be taking. +- 4.1 – Status update (Sally Costerton) Jonathan: what should be focusing on at Council +- Sally: +- several streams around IG +- Background +- Buenos Aires - became clear that profile of IG was increasing - triggered by Snowden issue the rest of the world had "woken up" resurfaced WCIT issues very full IG calendar in 2014 Fadi's view - sense that there is frustration over how hard IG issues are to resolve ITU - march toward their meeting late in the year -- debate around whether they're going to change their remit if we don't participate others will do it for us +- 1Net discussion forum where debate is taking place in great detail now has a steering committee +- web forum is up and running -- discussion is migrating that direction -- much easier to follow than the overwhelming traffic on the email list ~ https://forum.1net.org/ +- CCWG discuss and collect input meeting weekly goal: position by the end of March +- email archive http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/ +- web page https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/ICANN+Community+Preparation+for+t… +- Hi Level Panel (5th panel) +- 3 f2f meetings December now May there is to be a submission to the Brazil meeting +- NetMundial goal: HOW to decide, not decide submissions of principle and framework late April, just after Easter hosted by Brazilian govt 4 cochairs Hi level committee -- just met this week -- goal: good attention/attendance by governments deadline for registration is tomorrow (28-Feb) +- registration web page ~ content.netmundial.br > Interests > Expression +- overall web page ~ netmundial.br +- Singapore NCSG event -- starts at 10am, Friday before meeting, 10:00 - 18:00, followed by reception w/Fadi Several events during the ICANN meetings +- 4.2 – Discussion +- Berard; +- ccNSO: categories of participation in NetMudial meetingdon't make room for ccTLD managers -- is this a metaphor for the way that IG discussions aren't leaving room for individual members of ICANN +- tactical - ccNSO members? open registration meeting - everybody is welcome - first come first served attendance strongly encourage participation +- Snowden revelations provide excellent cover for political intent -- what is Fadi's public position on this? Maria Farrell: John - the Montevideo statement sets out pretty clearly the concern re. pervasive monitoring and Internet stewardship. Fadi signed it for ICANN so I think it's fair to say he sees a link. Even if some use the Snowden revelations tactically, the fact remains that many have lost faith in the impartiality of the USG. +- Costerton: get asked questions about globalization of ICANN and Snowden - we don't have a particular view - realization within the US govt that structures may need to change need to reenforce other voices at the table +- Richard Clark transcript -- the two issues are as far apart as one could find ~ windowsitpro.com > Identity-management > Richard-clarke-rsa-conference-10-observations-us-intelligence-gathering +- Farrell +- Board resolution on globalization - disquite on lack of consultation, yet more CEO appointed panels, a lot of CEO-led activity going on. concern about Council role in this ad hoc series of actions by administration +- Board chair saw a lot of email on this -- perhaps the 1net list? ~ Marika Konings: Please note that this is the email from Steve Crocker that Sally was referring to: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-February/002194.html Costerton; with her engagement hat on -- groups are to facilitate the discussion that you have described Maria -- they will be in Singapore and given a public block - Council needs to know that their role is to act as facilitator +- Avri would very much have liked to participate the process of setting this up - post is coming to the list Action: watch for that post +- Cake: +- is there anything that the Council or SGs should do? reach out to communities and encourage them to participate in Netmundial +- take a look at the BCG report ~ icann.org > En > News > Announcements > Announcement-24jan14-en +- Chiao congratulates Costerton on ASIAPAC engagement -- AsiaPAC members would like to be more engaged with the actual meetings, not just talking to people in the region, bring people to the meeting table and actually contribute 4.3 – Next steps +- Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – GAC Engagement – the work of the Joint GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (15 mins) Here the Council will receive an update and discuss any action going forward. +- 7.1 – Status update +- Amr: +- Reviewed charter -- http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140212/c6e3f7b6/GAC… Two work streams - PDP early engagement and day to day interaction +- 7.2 – Discussion +- Mikey Charter is done, proposals are in progress 7.3 – Next steps +- Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Forthcoming review of the GNSO (10 mins) As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, ICANN board initiated reviews of the GNSO (and the GNSO Council and related functions) are expected. In order to be informed and effectively prepared for this work, we have begun to engage with the body that commissions such reviews (the structural improvements committee) through its chair, Ray Plazk. The Council will track the planning work of the SIC and, where appropriate; provide relevant input to the process. We will also prepare to undertake a form of self-review in a similar format to that which we expect to arise out of the work of the SIC. A self-review will ensure that we are not only prepared for the board initiated work but also able to flag areas for potential improvement in as timely as possible a manner. +- 8.1 – Update (Jennifer Wolfe) there is no update since the last meeting -- still waiting for an update from Ray Jonathan: will there be a document prior to Singapore? Marika: nothing expected to be published before Singapore 8.2 – Discussion 8.3 – Next steps +- Item 9: UPDATE & DISCUSSION – Planning for Singapore (15 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, David Cake will lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Council’s proposed meetings with other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. +- 9.1 – Update (David Cake & Jonathan Robinson) Cake: very much Draft, 9.2 – Discussion +- 9.3 – Next steps Action: forward the draft schedule to the ISPCP list if it hasn't been already -- DONE +- Item 10: Any Other Business (10 mins) +- Community budget requests +- requests from the Council: Council development session, face-to-face PDP meetings (potential for facilitation), GAC GNSO reverse liaison (placeholder) +- ICANN Board Seat 14 – NCPH - additional Council meeting Thursday, 10 April 2014 at 14:00 UTC this is a placeholder for that meeting -- Glen to follow up to the list -- rationale for meeting +- Note the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) presence in Singapore Action: schedule them with ISPCP on Tuesday? Action: note public session to ISPCP list +- Meeting Strategy WG has draft out for comment +- Action: forward to ISPCP list - DONE ~ icann.org > En > News > Public-comment > Meetings-strategy-25feb14-en Action: comments from ISPCP? - DONE +- Amr: EWG process -- is Issue report the same as the EWG final report? Marika: important to separate the two. final report due London, may be another round of public comment. There is already an initial report underway -- EWG will feed into that Issue Report, which will proceed to PDP because it's Board initiated PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

FW: [liaison6c] FW: RSSAC presentation to the community
by Tony Holmes Feb. 27, 2014

Feb. 27, 2014

For all those who will be in Singapore Tony From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: 27 February 2014 00:59 To: liaison6c Subject: [liaison6c] FW: RSSAC presentation to the community FYI Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> From: owner-policy(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-policy@icann.org] On Behalf Of Barbara Roseman Sent: mercredi 26 février 2014 19:30 To: policy(a)icann.org Subject: [policy] RSSAC presentation to the community All, The RSSAC presentation to the community is currently scheduled for Monday, 24 March, tentatively from 13:30-14:30. Titled: Update to the ICANN Community and Key Discussion Topics, the RSSAC members meeting in Singapore will share current work being accomplished by RSSAC, as well as a discussion of root server operations and activities. Please share this information with your groups, we believe this will be a worthwhile session. I will prepare a true invite when I get final confirmation on the time. Regards, -Barb

1 0

Fwd: Reminder: Request for input: GNSO's Working Group on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 27, 2014

Feb. 27, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Subject: Reminder: Request for input: GNSO's Working Group on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation > Date: February 27, 2014 at 1:40:14 PM CST > To: "tony holmes (tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com)" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> > Cc: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com>, Osvaldo Novoa <onovoa(a)antel.com.uy>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > > > > Dear Tony, > > This note is a follow up to the request sent on 23 January, on behalf of the GNSO's Working Group on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation, which is working on a Policy Development Process on the issues relating to the accreditation of such services. The WG had hoped to receive input from your group by Friday 28 February, as the feedback will be very useful to the WG's deliberations. If your group wishes to provide input but will need more time, please let Mary Wong, the policy staff member handling this matter know, at mary.wong(a)icann.org. Please also let Mary know if you would like her to resend the list of questions for which feedback is being sought. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > Glen > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

meeting strategy working group -- has a report posted for public comment
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 27, 2014

Feb. 27, 2014

hi all, a quick note to highlight that the Meeting Strategy Working Group has proposals that they are seeking public comment on. since we do much of our work at ICANN meetings, it seems a worthy topic for discussion/review/comment, no? here’s a link to the public-comment page http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Draft Singapore schedule
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 27, 2014

Feb. 27, 2014

here’s the current state of the draft schedule for Singapore that David circulated to the Council list a few days ago. he emphasized on today’s Council call that this is very much “draft” and would like to hear suggestions for improvement. mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: David Cake <dave(a)difference.com.au> > Subject: [council] Draft Singapore schedule > Date: February 25, 2014 at 9:35:45 AM CST > To: Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Please find attached a draft schedule for GNSO activities for the Singapore meeting. > Please understand that, though interactions with senior ICANN staff and the board have to contend with very busy schedules, and so may be awkward to change, this is very much a draft schedule, presented for Council discussion and input - please feel free to suggest additional items, or remove them. You'll notice that 15 minutes per WG fills up a fair bit of our schedule, and we have allocated 30 minutes for some - comments on this appreciated. > I very much appreciate your input either on list, or on the Council call. > > One item I'll note isn't currently on the schedule - the RSSAC is meeting at the Singapore meeting, and this is very unusual. We currently don't have any RSSAC/GNSO interaction scheduled - if council members think this would be valuable, please say so ASAP. Such interaction would have to be from Monday to Wednesday. > Regards > > David > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fw: [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approachesto solving...)
by WUKnoben Feb. 27, 2014

Feb. 27, 2014

This is a firm statement of the ICANN Board Chair. I hope he and the board can really follow these guidelines. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Steve Crocker Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:48 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: discuss(a)1net.org List Subject: Re: [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approachesto solving...) Marilyn, Even when you speak darkly you brighten my day :) Let me speak simply and directly on some topics that seem to recur. One topic is 1net and the Brazil meeting. Another is about direction and governance of ICANN. Many of us, including me, know these are quite separate topics, but both seem to be coming up repeatedly. With respect to 1net and the Brazil meeting, the motivation for these is to develop additional mechanisms and forums for dealing with the broad range of topics that fall generally under the rubric of Internet governance. The primary focus is not -- or, at least, should not be -- about ICANN, though I can well imagine there will be at least some focus on ICANN. Brazil is hosting the meeting in Sao Paulo, along with several other governments, and ICANN is merely a participant. Fadi and his team have been very helpful in the process, and they have done with the full support of the ICANN Board, but this is a form of public service that comes along with our main mission; it is not our main mission and we are not seeking to expand our purview. Meanwhile, with respect to the roles of the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Board and the staff in the decision process within ICANN, we remain committed to the multi-stakeholder model with emphasis on a bottom up process and open participation from all. The staff's role is to implement and execute. This is a large task. It requires a lot of resources, and, necessarily some judgment along the way, but the staff does not try to control the direction. The Board also sees itself as having a limited role. We have a legal obligation to oversee the finances and properly operation of the corporation and to make sure the rules are being followed. We are keenly aware that the bylaws appear to put us in the position of making the primary decisions regarding policy, but we know the real directions are set by the community. The Board watches to see processes are followed and that problems get solved, but we try to avoid doing the work ourselves. Some -- perhaps most -- of what makes various people uncomfortable is coming from the scaling up of ICANN's activities. When we all decided to move forward with new gTLDs, with IDNs, with DNSSEC, with outreach to each of the regions, and with many other initiatives, it was inevitable that the organization would grow and change. We also chose, in response to the changing political environment, to engage in the larger dialog about Internet governance as a whole. The ICANN you contributed to -- and we all owe you many thanks for your tireless efforts and many good things that have come from your efforts -- has grown, matured and become far more capable of dealing with the wide range of business, technical, policy and political issues in front of it than it used to be. ICANN is not yet done evolving. I don't know precisely what it will look like in the future, but I am pretty sure there will be changes. Some of these changes will be small, subtle changes; others may be more visible and seem dramatic. However, all of these changes will be motivated by the same enduring principles that ICANN's mission is to coordinate the unique identifiers for the Internet and ensure their security and stability, that ICANN must also foster competition and innovation, that ICANN must be transparent and accountable, and that ICANN has to be effective, efficient and empathic with the community it serves. Steve On Feb 25, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I will say [darkly] that that is not the ICANN I helped to contribute to, > and it is not the ICANN that I support, but it seems to be the ICANN that > the Board is enabling. > > Too many staff -- new-- don't even actually know what ICANN does, how it > does it, or why. > > I think a 'hit pause' button is needed. > > M > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 25, 2014, at 7:20 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 24-Feb-14 23:41, Mike Roberts wrote: >>>> From a legal perspective, which may or may not be valued by those >>>> on this list, only an approved Board resolution represents the >>>> position of the organization >> >> From a legal perspective yes. And if ICANN is just another money making >> corporation, that is indeed the way it should be and it should only be >> the CEO and properly trained corporate mouthpeices speaking for it. >> >> But from the multistakeholder PoV we keep selling ourselves, that is not >> the way it should be, and not the fantasy most of us keep laboring under. >> >> Unfortunately ICANN is more the standard corporation with a CEO who has >> his own vision, with a Board that approves, instead of the >> multistakeholder organization where that vision directs their actions. >> That is, it may not be the organzation most of those volunteering in it >> think it is. >> >> So yeah, if it is not a multistakeholder organization led from the >> bottom-up, legally is all that counts. >> >> avri >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss(a)1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss(a)1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0