February 2007 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

Question: Alan, you stated that "I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and participating in the RALO creation process." Why, specifically, US-based ALSs for a chance of succeeding? Also, I definitely agree with Michael Maranda's opinions. We are not trying to create some complicated structure as I understand has been done in the past - just attempting to form up under the processes that are in place at this time.. Personally, I thought that it would be important for the Canadian ALSs and US ALSs to get together since some of our US counterparts have more experience in this group than some of the newer ones coming in from Canada. There would be valuable information to share and, perhaps, give us better focus in order to be more effective. Also, I never really saw the Vancouver meeting as being the definitive meeting to create the NA RALO but more of a preliminary one to bring everybody up to speed. I guess those south of the border don't see this as being important, though. Its rather a shame. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:43 PM To: Luc Faubert; Nick Ashton-Hart; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver I was offline most of last week, and am just starting to catch up. My position was not quite as you stated. I felt that a NARALO formation meeting was not appropriate at this time. I was quite happy to have the meeting take place with funding from ICANN, but as a meeting primarily aimed at Canadian ALSs. I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and participating in the RALO creation process. I agree with John that their should be significant progress made electronically, although I believe that a face-to-face meeting prior to the formal signing would be a good thing. However, having the definitive NARALO formation meeting with so few US ALSs and only one in attendance is both premature and a recipe of failure. For the record, I could not attend the meeting due to other commitments. Alan At 02/02/2007 03:14 PM, Luc Faubert wrote: Nick, If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea? Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/> ), I guess I'm missing something here. I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken,

1 0

Potential Meeting in Vancouver
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

Dear All: As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself. Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded. In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection. What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following: 1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend. 2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too. 3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting. Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work? -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (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 http://www.alac.icann.org

13 27

WHOIS Task Force Public Comment Period
by Danny Younger Feb. 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007

Dear Jordyn, In your capacity as Chair of the WHOIS Task Force you have succeeded in having a number of policy proposals put forth (notably the Operational Point of Contact proposal and the Special Circumstances proposal); you have also succeeded in obtaining through the public comment period a large number of valid criticisms regarding each of these two proposals (and others). As I assess the manner by which the TF chooses to progress its work, I do not find within the workplan an effort to modify either of these plans as a result of the constructive public comment input received; rather, I see only a plan to put forth a "response to the public comments" followed by a straw poll to indicate which of the policy positions will become the majority position of the TF and which will become the minority report. Neither of these two proposals is a finished product. The public has clearly made its view known that there are serious deficiencies in each of these two competing recommendations. Why then is the final Task Force call scheduled for a scant 12 days from now? Why isn't the Task Force working to offer up a better product in light of commentary received? What's the point of having a public comment period if TF members aren't prepared to respect the public view by acting to thereafter modify the initial policy proposals? Please note that I have posted this letter to the at-large lists in that the course of action the Task Force ultimately takes will surely affect us all. Best regards, Danny Younger ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Major Milestone Coming Up
by Robert Guerra Feb. 7, 2007

Feb. 7, 2007

quantity or quality - that's the question.... With all the recent developments on and about groups joining and RALO's , I really don't notice an increase in the level of engaged discussion. Thus, the question should be how many of the 95 are in fact active and engaged. regards Robert On 7-Feb-07, at 12:48 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear All: > > We have today reached our 94th ALS application, receiving five > applications in the last five days; we can expect to receive our > 100th ALS application very soon. > > Quite a milestone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us hit 250 > organisations this year. > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- > lists.icann.org

1 0

A good starting point, but more precise details are needed
by Robert Guerra Feb. 6, 2007

Feb. 6, 2007

I think the LAC Ralo documents are a good starting point, but rather weak. Transparency, openness and accountability are values seen as important in the NA region, as such our RALO documents should include them. Some high level , bullet point comments on specific areas that I think need to be further detailed in the text we have developed so far. - Core Values I would like to see a preamble added - one that states core values that all parties agree to. - Commitments What ALS's in the region and ICANN commits to, i think should be more detailed. A timeframe should be mentioned, perhaps included in an appendix. - Transparency: Reporting requirement needs to be detailed. If ALS's are representing the public, then the public has a right to know what are ALS's are doing. Thus, MoU should include wording that commits ICANN and ALS's to report publicly on their activities. Frequency should be as often as ICANN meetings (3-4 a year). - Openness: a. Contact Information Up to date contact information for ICANN and ALS's is essential. I am surprised, almost shocked that such information is not available now. As such, I would like to request that this be remedied by including a contract information sharing requirement in the MoU I don't know what ICANN is willing to do, but the NA ALS's should commit to submitting up to date contact information not only to ICANN but all other ALS's as well. b. Financial Reporting Information related to budgets needs to be public as well. if finding contact information is difficult, finding the financials is even more of a challenge. Right now the global ALAC budget is available, but breakdown is provided. ALS's in North america should be able to get from ICANN a detailed breakdown of the ALAC budget. - Review MoU and other documents should be subject to a update and/or review to see if the signatories are holding up to their commitments. Complaint and/or grievance mechanism must be mentioned. regards Robert regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [NA-ALS] [ALAC] List consolidation proposal
by Luc Faubert Feb. 6, 2007

Feb. 6, 2007

I also agree with Wendy's proposal for list consolidation and use of ICANNwiki. I suggest the following changes to the names of the lists however: alac -> atlarge alac-internal -> alac As for North America, let's keep na-discuss and eliminate na-als, as Wendy suggests, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca > -----Original Message----- > From: na-als-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of > Wendy Seltzer > Sent: 6 février 2007 07:35 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [NA-ALS] [ALAC] List consolidation proposal > > First off, thanks very much to Nick for finally helping us to > get ALAC communications under our control and for tracking > down ALS contacts to add to lists. Now, though, we have an > embarrassment of riches -- so many lists that it's hard to > know where to send and hard for the recipients to continue > the discussion because they're fragmented among many one-way lists. > > I propose the following for the lists @atlarge-lists.icann.org: > > alac -- public archive, open membership, list for general > ALAC business. > Open for posting to any interested party (including the > memberships of *-Discuss and *-ALS). > > alac-internal -- ALAC members only, no public archive, > LIMITED use (e.g., what time's the conference call) > > regional lists -- at the option of regions' ALSs and > individuals, for discussion of region-specific business. > Publicly archived; open or closed at regions' option. For NA, > I propose consolidation down to NA-Discuss, open membership. > > > Finally, on the wikis, I propose using ICANNwiki exclusively, > rather than the closed, publicly invisible Socialtext site. > > As the ALAC is supposed to represent the interests of the > individual Internet users, we should be holding more > conversations with them! > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > NA-ALS mailing list > NA-ALS(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge > -lists.icann.org >

1 0

Triple X - Government of Canada comment to ICANN
by lists＠privaterra.info Feb. 6, 2007

Feb. 6, 2007

As I mentioned it in an earlier posting, thought I should copy the submission here. Note the very direct comments on "mission creep" ... regards Robert (straight copy/paste from the GoC submission on triple XXX) COMMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA The Government of Canada thanks ICANN for providing an opportunity to comment on the revised proposed agreement with ICM providing for designation of a .XXX sTLD registry. Canada continues to participate in the ICANN Government Advisory Committees discussion of the creation of this new sTLD. However, Canada is concerned with the direction the ICANN process appears to be taking and the possible implication of that direction for the future of the organization and of the Internet itself. The following comments are intended to draw our concerns to the attention of the broader Internet community. In 2006, in our response to the United States Department of Commerce Notice of Inquiry (NOI), Canada made the following point: it is essential to underscore and to reiterate the narrow technical nature of ICANNs mandate, as a body responsible for the administration of Internet names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. We recognize that these technical issues occasionally give rise to policy considerations. This has led to confusion about ICANN's role and sometimes distracted the organization from its core mandate. Canada is of the view that, going forward, ICANN and its stakeholders should be scrupulous in taking a very narrow view of ICANN's policy functions, ensuring that any policy issues considered arise directly from and/or are inextricably linked to the organizations core technical functions. Any other policy issues should be referred to other more appropriate bodies. Our response went on to say: In considering the policy-making aspect of ICANNs role, it is of fundamental importance to make a distinction between broad Internet-related public policy issues such as spam, fraud, child pornography, etc., which are clearly outside ICANNs mandate, and the more focused policy issues directly related to the technical functioning of the Internet, which are within its mandate. We have reviewed the content of the revised proposed agreement with ICM and other materials provided by the company and we are concerned that many terms of the agreement appear to require, permit or encourage ICANN to venture far beyond its core technical functions. Specifically, the proposed agreement appears to give ICANN the right to monitor the fulfilment of ICMs obligations and policy implementation in areas beyond what might reasonably be considered a technically-focused mandate. Some examples: ICANN is given an opportunity to review and negotiate policies proposed by the Registry Operator or the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR), many having nothing to do with ICANNs technical mandate (e.g., promoting child safety and preventing child pornography ) ICANN is also called upon to approve/disapprove of ICMs choice of a monitoring agency ICANN (and the GAC) will be called upon to identify names of cultural and/or religious significance as well as names of territories, distinct economies, and other geographic and geopolitical names to be reserved from use in the .xxx domain. If ICANN accepts these and other similar conditions in the proposed agreement, it is moving in a very significant way toward taking on an ongoing policy-making and oversight role governing Internet content. There is little doubt that significant public policy issues arise in taking decisions on new gTLDs. The GAC is now in the process of developing Principles and Guidelines on Public Policy Issues Regarding the Implementation of New gTLDs to provide guidance to ICANN on a range of those issues. The Government of Canada considers it inappropriate for ICANN to take on an ongoing role such as the one outlined in the revised proposed agreement with ICM. Internet content is subject to generally applicable laws in countries where it is available. There have been various instances where national governments have successfully imposed limits on the domestic distribution over the Internet of content found to be in breach of domestic laws. Such content control is controversial in many states and poses many technical and legal challenges. Canada remains of the view that it is not and should not be ICANNs mandate to set policy related to content or intended to censor, control or interfere with content on the Internet by way of its contracts with TLD operators. In its discussion of various Internet related policy issues, the GAC and its members have frequently expressed concern about ICANN assuming policy functions which may infringe upon the policy responsibilities of sovereign states. The regulation of Internet content raises precisely this concern. Engaging ICANN in setting policy and supervisory functions related to content is a slippery slope. Once undertaken, the role will surely grow case by case. ICANN was not conceived to be the global Internet content regulator. It has had some difficulty establishing legitimacy and full acceptance in carrying out its primary function related to managing the domain name system. ICANNs becoming engaged in content regulation through its contracts with TLDs risks undermining its legitimacy and purpose at a time when these need to be reinforced and strengthened. The Government of Canada therefore recommends that ICANN should not take upon itself these inappropriate functions. Instead, ICANN should look to alternative measures more appropriate to ICANNs technical mandate. For example, ICANN could oblige the TLD to require registered sites to apply and maintain current control rating systems that enable filtering by end users who may wish to do so. Other technical solutions are now becoming available that could be required to provide governments or individuals the means to prevent access to sites deemed to be illegal or offensive. Such approaches would empower governments and individual Internet users to determine appropriate content policy as they see fit, without involving ICANN in determining such policy.

5 6

[Fwd: [NA-ALS] [ALAC] Domain Monetisation Briefing]
by Wendy Seltzer Feb. 6, 2007

Feb. 6, 2007

As far as I can tell from here, this message hasn't reached the discuss list, where it was originally requested. Yes, I'm still hoping we can get the lists consolidated. Does anyone in NA prefer having separate NA-ALAC, NA-ALS, and NA-Discuss lists, or can we agree all NA-interested members should be on one list? --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NA-ALS] [ALAC] Domain Monetisation Briefing Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:48:18 +0000 From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)spamcop.net> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear All: A report has been requested by the ALAC of the staff in relation to Domain Monetisation and as a result I have done some digging and found the attached report on the issue. I attach it as the report may not have been widely disseminated at the time and in any case many new ALSes have become involved in At-Large since it was prepared and likely will not have seen it. -- 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 <mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com> / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com> / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

2 1

Domain Registrars & Free Speech..
by Robert Guerra Feb. 3, 2007

Feb. 3, 2007

Getting on to issues other than the formation of the NA-Ralo.... If ALAC has as its function to bring the voice of user to ICANN, then let us also discuss issues of concern to users. Case in point, Fyodor Vaskovich, a fellow CPSR board member had his site shut down by the domain name registrar GoDaddy. Facts are below.. My question - should ALAC and the user community involved in ICANN take up the issue of domain take downs by Registrars? If so - Were the actions taken by GoDaddy correct? If not, what can we do - and how can it be raised at the next meeting in Lisbon this coming March. I look forward to everyone's comments, specifically how we might (as a collective group) help raise this issue inside the ICANN community. regards Robert Guerra -- Survey: Are domain registrars free-speech friendly? http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6155614.html Go Daddy's controversial decision last week to suspend the domain name of a popular computer security Web site did more than merely raise questions about the extent of free speech on today's Internet. It also prompted owners of domain names to wonder about the reliability of their own registrars--and whether the domains they own are safe from suspension in the absence of a court order. -- The CPSR Compiler - January 2007 http://www.cpsr.org/news/compiler/2007/compiler200701 [snipped] Domain Registrar GoDaddy Suspends Popular Security Site Based on Complaint from MySpace.Com On Wednesday, January 24, GoDaddy shut down the domain name of popular security mailing list archive SecLists.Org based on an informal complaint from MySpace.Com. SecLists.Org is run by CPSR board member and security researcher Fyodor Vaskovich. Responding to complaints that they only gave Fyodor 52 seconds of notice between leaving him a voicemail and suspending the domain, GoDaddy general counsel Christina Jones was quoted in Wired saying "I think the fact that we gave him notice at all was pretty generous". In a News.Com article about the situation, she noted that in their terms of service, GoDaddy "reserves the right to terminate your access to the services at any time, without notice, for any reason whatsoever". The offending content was one of 250,000 pages posted by 3rd party users to the site, and a similar shutdown could happen to any web site which accepts user generated content such as forum posting or blog comments. In response, Fyodor launched the site http://NoDaddy.Com to detail this and other domain registration abuses by GoDaddy. CPSR contends that web content complaints are best dealt with at the site owner and web hosting provider level. Domain registrars have no control over the content of web sites pointed to by a domain name, and should not take responsibility for policing those web sites. If they do so anyway, registrars should at least provide the domain owner a chance to refute or address the complaint before shutting down domains without any sort of court order. The incident with SecLists.Org was widely reported. Here are some of the better articles: http://news.com.com/GoDaddy+pulls+security+site+after+MySpace +complaints/2100-1025_3-6153607.html http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1542218&threshold=4 http://domainnamewire.com/2007/01/26/godaddy-faces-pr-nightmare-over- domain-suspension/ http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/01/godaddy_defends.html http://www.politechbot.com/2007/01/26/godaddy-pull-plug/ http://www.thewhir.com/blogs/Isabel-Wang/index.cfm/2007/1/26/GoDaddy- Takes-Down-Seclists

3 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 2, 2007

Feb. 2, 2007

Oh, thank you, Robert, Any of your suggestions below would definitely be better from my standpoint. I would really like to hear all sides of the story in an open forum. I really wish we could get together and talk about this but I understand the funding constraints involved. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:04 PM To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Paul Levins Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents One on one discussions are a nice touch, but aren't transparent to the group as a whole. A preferable approach would be one that documents the issues, and comments in an open and transparent fashion. Keeping the discussion on the list, or an open site like a wiki and/or a blog would be , in my opinion the way to do it. The Toronto meeting this past June identified that there is a large gap in knowledge about ICANN in Canada . More specifically user groups in Canada have "heard" about ICANN, but really don't know much about how it operates nor how modalities for engagement and involvement are structured. Further outreach, engagement and background information is needed before organizations can decide if they wish to engage in the formation of a NA RALO. Is a NA Ralo being rushed, or now - well, that's the question. What to do ... well, let's hear from both sides , and then let people decide on their own if "past issues" in fact still exist - or if we are in fact dealing with a better and more open ICANN. My dealings with staff seem to indicate the latter is true .. regards Robert On 2-Feb-07, at 10:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I second that - I've also offered to spend some time on the > telephone doing Q&A for her if that's helpful for her - and that > offer's open to everyone else too > _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org

2 1