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

History of the At-Large definition
by Danny Younger May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

Shortly after ICANN's creation a Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed that examined issues related to At-Large membership. The MAC found consensus on the following definition of who/what is an at-large community member: "1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations. It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders. We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/conrades.html One might reasonably ask "as ICANN has a home for both commercial and non-commercial organizations (the BC and the NCUC -- and logically, that should cover the entire gamut of organizations out there), what type of organizations don't have representation within the Supporting Organizations?" There are certain commercial interests (such as domain name resellers) that are not granted participatory opportunities within the BC due to BC Charter exclusions. There are also noncommercial organizations that are denied membership in the NCUC owing to charter considerations: Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: -- Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials -- Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) -- Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization The MAC wanted to make sure that the At-Large would constitute the catch-all category so that no entity would be excluded from the ICANN process (this is why their definition included "organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations"). This consensus definition of the At-Large was later changed (some would say perverted) by members of the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) that were hand-picked by former ICANN Chairman of the Board Esther Dyson after ICANN had eliminated all elected At-Large directors. The new definition created by these ICANN insiders allowed for almost any organization (even those already represented by constituency structures) to become part of the At-Large. This change of definition served to divide the community of civil society organizations and to dilute their collective impact and well-served ICANN's interests (as they had described the Civil Society element that kept raging for ICANN reform as ICANN's single largest distraction). Instead of the At-Large being recognized as a body that was primarily comprised of individuals (with an occasional organizational entity as part of the mix), the new at-large definition posited organizations as the primary stakeholders in the at-large with individuals treated almost as an afterthought. In most RALOS now, individuals either don't have voting rights or their rights are not on a par with those of organizational entities). The broad At-Large community has never accepted the new definition of the at-large that was foisted upon us. The current definition has no consensus-based support and it primarily serves to exclude the very individuals that are what the at-large community was all about. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 4

Individual user reps
by Wendy Seltzer May 1, 2007

May 1, 2007

To cut the circularity of approving individual voters to vote for operating procedures where the OP themselves define the voters, we've been asked to name 2 individual reps. I've seen Jean Polly self-nominate, and I second her nomination. I'll put my own name into the ring, though I'd happily take other volunteers for this procedural task. You can see from my postings that I'd favor greater direct contact with and participation by individuals. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 1, 2007

May 1, 2007

Sorry to be responding to some of this so long after the questions were posted, but I just returned from holiday + being ill. To answer the question: There are currently no procedures for decertification of an ALS by ALAC, though as noted the Bylaws of ICANN do provide for the ability of the ALAC to create such and make use of them. On 16/04/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to > determine which ALSes made contributions that are > "worthwhile". > > Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The > ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS > decertification: > > "Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large > Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the > members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review > according to procedures established by the Board." > > We should have the ALAC publish these decertification > procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them > anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures > to be published? > > --- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > Luc Faubert wrote: > > > "The Chair could be responsible to determine which > > ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile". > > > > > Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a > > judgement call. > > > > I am accountable to my group's membership for the > > quality of our > > participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to > > this sub-group that > > -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even > > determining a meeting > > site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take > > place!). > > > > Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose > > participants > > complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff > > power, yet have no > > problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to > > the group itself? Two > > wrongs do NOT make a right. > > > > Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave > > such a provision out. > > If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it. > > > > - Evan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- -- 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

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] San Juan
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

We are looking to streamline a number of processes and procedures for San Juan as compared to previous meetings, so I recommend no assumptions be made ... On 30/04/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > There will be full details on all of these points in due course. > > > On 30/04/07, RJGlass | America@Large <jipshida(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> For those of us without a clue... > >> > >> Could someone post the details of the San Juan trip? > >> ie: > >> > >> Who to contact at ICANN for travel arrangements > >> > >> What expenses are covered > > Typically, ICANN has covered expenses for coach-class travel, hotel, and > meals. > > >> > >> Methods of reimbursements > > With receipts, by check or wire transfer some indeterminate period later. > > >> Travel/meeting dates > > <http://www.icann.org/meetings/sanjuan/> lists 25 - 29 June 2007 > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] San Juan
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

There will be full details on all of these points in due course. On 30/04/07, RJGlass | America@Large <jipshida(a)gmail.com> wrote: > For those of us without a clue... > > Could someone post the details of the San Juan trip? > ie: > > Who to contact at ICANN for travel arrangements > > What expenses are covered > > Methods of reimbursements > > Travel/meeting dates > > Thanks! > Randy Glass > A@L > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- -- 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

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

Since the ICANN Bylaws provide that ALAC may decertify an ALS by a 2/3 vote, and that the Board of ICANN shall review any such decision using a procedure to be determined by the board, I'm afraid that providing in the MoU for decertification of ALSes would only be possible via some generic language which in effect states that decertification shall be as provided in the ICANN Bylaws. On 30/04/07, RJGlass | America@Large <jipshida(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest: > > 1) placing these decertifying procedures in the MOU. > > 2) either a) specifying the ways which individuals are represented in ALAC > or b) removing individuals from the membership of ALAC* in the proposed MOU. > > Other than that, the MOU seems fine with me. > > *I'm not trying to un-involve the individuals from the ALAC, it just seems > that they can fit into an ALS in some way. There has been discussion as to > how we certify an individual, how to make sure there are not multiple votes, > etc. It just seems this is a weakness of the procedures. > > Thanks, > Randy Glass > A@L > > > > On 4/30/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > wrote: > > Sorry to be responding to some of this so long after the questions > > were posted, but I just returned from holiday + being ill. > > > > To answer the question: There are currently no procedures for > > decertification of an ALS by ALAC, though as noted the Bylaws of ICANN > > do provide for the ability of the ALAC to create such and make use of > > them. > > > > On 16/04/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to > > > determine which ALSes made contributions that are > > > "worthwhile". > > > > > > Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The > > > ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS > > > decertification: > > > > > > "Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large > > > Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the > > > members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review > > > according to procedures established by the Board." > > > > > > We should have the ALAC publish these decertification > > > procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them > > > anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures > > > to be published? > > > > > > --- Evan Leibovitch < evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Luc Faubert wrote: > > > > > "The Chair could be responsible to determine which > > > > ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile". > > > > > > > > > Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a > > > > judgement call. > > > > > > > > I am accountable to my group's membership for the > > > > quality of our > > > > participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to > > > > this sub-group that > > > > -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even > > > > determining a meeting > > > > site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take > > > > place!). > > > > > > > > Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose > > > > participants > > > > complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff > > > > power, yet have no > > > > problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to > > > > the group itself? Two > > > > wrongs do NOT make a right. > > > > > > > > Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave > > > > such a provision out. > > > > If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it. > > > > > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > --- > > > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > Draft Code of Conduct: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > > > -- > ------------------------- > AmericaAtLarge.org > RJPacific.com > DDMF.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

San Juan
by RJGlass | America＠Large April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

For those of us without a clue... Could someone post the details of the San Juan trip? ie: Who to contact at ICANN for travel arrangements What expenses are covered Methods of reimbursements Travel/meeting dates Thanks! Randy Glass A@L

1 0

IGP Newsletter, Vol 2.02
by Mr. Robert Guerra April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

I'm forwarding this, as it could be of interest to those not on the internet governance mailing list. regards, Robert -- ====================================== Internet Governance Project Newsletter ====================================== ...current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the Internet Governance Project. http://www.internetgovernance.org Volume 2.02 April 27, 2007 ======== Contents ======== [1] ICANN's Deregulation Leads to (Surprise!) TLD Price Increases [2] DNSSEC: A Serial Blog [3] Master Key to the Internet? US Homeland Security Takes some Heat [4] Court Tells USG to Reveal More about its role in .xxx [5] Will Whois Debate Ever End? [6] Civil Society Experts Convene for Global Governance Workshop [7] IGP Research: Award Winning Papers [8] Upcoming Event: Symposium on Internet Governance and Security [9] Upcoming Event: IGF Consultation ================================================================= [1] No Price Caps + No Registry Competition = TLD Price Increases ================================================================= Of course the press was loudest this month when VeriSign, in line with its recently minted registry contract with ICANN, hiked its prices for .COM to $6.42 per year per domain. But shortly thereafter the comparably smaller registries for .INFO and .ORG followed suit, raising their prices to $6.15. To be honest, none of the changes should have been a surprise. A feature of ICANN's new registry agreements minted in 2006 was the lifting of provisions imposing price controls on the .COM, .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG registry operators. Concern about the lifting of these controls and the potential for discriminatory or variable pricing was the focus of the majority of thousands of messages submitted in response to the request for public comments. All ccTLDs and many gTLDs (e.g. .AERO, .CAT, .COOP, .JOBS, .MOBI, .MUSEUM, .TEL, and .TRAVEL) operate without any ICANN-mandated price controls. ============================= [2] IGP Examines DNS Security ============================= During April, the IGP Blog has examined DNS Security Extensions, focusing specifically on the problem of cryptographically signing the DNS root zone to improve internet security. We've highlighted some of the hidden and not-so-hidden political implications of this technical change. And in the coming posts, we'll show how DNSSEC implementation, if handled properly, creates an opportunity to overcome some of the thorny global governance issues associated with the current root zone file management procedure. These postings -- hopefully with the aid of your comments -- will evolve into a new position paper on the politics and economics of DNSSEC to be released in May. Securing the Root: Introduction <http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/ 2007/4/2/2852013.html> Securing the Root: What is DNSSEC? What's the controversy? <http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/ 2007/4/9/2866546.html> Securing the Root: The root of the problem, creating trust anchor(s) <http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/ 2007/4/18/2890435.html> ================================================ [3] US Homeland Security Dept. Attracts Interest ================================================ While the web was abuzz over a story how DHS 'wants the master key' to a secure DNS, IGP was busy reporting the actual detail of the controversy. Signing the root is considered a critical step to deploying DNSSEC widely across the Internet. DHS's draft proposal, "Signing the Domain Name System Root Zone: Technical Specification," was quietly released last fall to a limited group of experts for review. It focused almost exclusively on a single 'Root Key Operator,' suggesting a governmental organization or contractor could assume the role. Citing the need to avoid "explicit interdependencies," a split key management approach which distributes authority among multiple parties and is a standard in high security federal systems was discounted. The DHS-funded study did, however, recognize other options, including multiple RKOs, in a small appendix. <http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/ 2007/4/15/2881860.html> ================================================================== [4] Court Orders USG to Tell More About its Role in .xxx Rejection ================================================================== ICANN finally made a decision to kill the ICM Registry's .xxx application, with the Board voting 9-5 against it in Lisbon last month. In a bad sign for the future, the vote indicated that ICANN's approach to top level domains will be to block any proposed that are politically or culturally controversial. The controversy over domain names and free expression on the Internet ignited robust discussion on civil society Internet governance lists < http://lists.cpsr.org/ lists/arc/governance/2007-04/msg00008.html>. In response to ICANN's decision, ICM registry released details of a court decision which ruled that the Departments of Commerce and State failed to justify withholding documents that reflect the U.S. government's role in meddling with ICANN's consideration of .xxx. The Court observed that "apparently in response to pressure from the U.S. government and other concerned parties - the [ICANN] Board postponed its vote on the measure at eight subsequent board meetings." It further ordered the government to turn over the documents or fully explain its failure to do so as part of official agency deliberations about the role of the U.S. government in ICANN's approval of .xxx. It discounted the government's excuses for withholding or redacting key documents, and admonished the departments that "[d]escriptions of mere opinions relating to ICANN's consideration of .XXX - absent, for example, corresponding assertions that such opinions concern DOC's role in ICANN process and contribute to an ongoing dialogue or debate regarding that role - do not enjoy deliberative process privilege." ICM Registry welcomed the Court's ruling. Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry said: "Recent events remind us that intergovernmental email exchanges can be more illuminating of agency actions than official explanations." View the Court order here: <http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/ 2007/3/30/2847139.html> =============================== [5] Will Whois Debate Cycle On? =============================== Despite the Whois Task Force issuing its conclusive final report in March, any final policy change by ICANN remains undone. The final report's recommendations to protect domain name registrants from unrestricted harvesting and mining of their contact data were a hard fought victory for public interest advocates, who built a tenuous alliance with the domain name registration industry to the dismay of the US government, and copyright and law enforcement interests. The GNSO Council will now begin consideration of the Task Force recommendations in order to create a Whois policy. Discussions were initiated during the ICANN Lisbon meetings, and will continue online and through conference calls. According to the ICANN website, the GNSO Council may make a policy recommendation to the ICANN Board following it's deliberations. Should the ICANN Board receive a recommendation from the GNSO Council, it must then consider whether to accept it. It is feared that the group will simply pound away for 4 more months on the same polarized disagreements that occupied the prior Whois Task Force for three years. One participant in an international organization described the result this way: "I found this process kind of bizarre, with a group sent out to work on the issue and coming back with a report and two conclusions, another group coming up with a set of draft policy principles which apparently are not based on the previous work done by the first group, to conclude with a decision of the originating group to set up another working group which has the objective to come up with...(ad libitum?)" You can follow the issue here: <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/> ========================================== [6] Civil Society and Global Public Policy ========================================== IGP's Milton Mueller attended the international meeting on "Civil Society Intervention in the Reform of Global Public Policy" in Paris April 17-19. The purpose of the meeting was to allow civil society organizations and academics from various continents, languages and issue-areas "to compare and analyze their strategies, methods and tools." The space for this discussion was provided by the Ford Foundation and the Institute for a new Reflection on Governance. The seminar used three global governance campaigns as the basis for discussions: 1) reform campaigns around International Financial Institutions (IFI); 2) promotion of the Tobin Tax, and 3) Internet governance. Conference organizer Lisa Jordan of the Ford Foundation explained that one reason for the choices was that the IFI campaigns are mature, dating back 25-30 years; the Tobin tax campaigns are middle-aged, and the Internet governance arena is a very young one. The Internet governance advocates and researchers in attendance included not only Mueller but Willie Currie of APC, Sean O'Siochru of the CRIS Campaign, Veronique Kleck of VECAM in France, and Dipankar Sinha of the University of Calcutta. As the newest and least familiar of the global governance campaigns, Internet governance as an issue benefited greatly from the exposure, attracting intense interest from the participants in other issue-networks. There is no room here for a full discussion of all the comparative lessons learned, but one message in particular about global Internet governance emerged. There was a great deal of discussion of how we assess the value of institutional venues to target, with the Internet Governance Forum in particular and multistakeholder venues in general ( e.g., the World Commission on Dams) receiving much scrutiny. But there was a consensus that these global institutions create civil society; i.e., they are spotlights that allow many different CS actors to find each other. WSIS succeeded in mobilizing civil society groups around communication-information policy issues and brought together people and issue networks that had not worked together before. The IGF is the only venue that can maintain that role now. The problem, of course, is that if IGF does not seriously affect policy or engage decision makers then its ability to attract and mobilize CS (and other players) will atrophy. Another interesting message to emerge was one of patience. International processes are slow and may conflict with the expectations created by the rapid technological and industry change in the IG area. An activist noted that time spans of 15-20 years were required. ========================================================== [7] IGP Researchers Win Awards, Shape Scientific Discourse ========================================================== IGP's ability to link Internet governance advocacy with rigorous scholarly work was visibly apparent over the past few months. Doctoral candidates Brenden Kuerbis and Christiane Page will present a paper at the 2007 International Communications Association meeting in San Francisco next month. Their recently published work , co- authored with Milton Mueller, was given the ICA law and policy division's "top three paper" award. The research examines communications rights and the emergence of transnational civil society advocacy in Internet governance during the World Summit on the Information Society. < http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/ view/13> The evolution of Internet governance was also the topic of a recent article by IGP Partners Milton L. Mueller, John Mathiason and Hans Klein. Their article, "The Internet and Global Governance: Principles and Norms for a New Regime," was published in the April/ June issue of Global Governance. < http://www.atypon-link.com/LRP/doi/ abs/10.5555/ggov.2007.13.2.237> Emerald Group Publishing informed us that Milton Mueller's recently published paper, "IP addressing: the next frontier of internet governance debate" has been selected as a Highly Commended Winner at the Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2007. < www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14636690610688051> Partner John Mathiason also published work earlier this year with Kumarian Press. "Invisible Governance: International Secretariats in Global Politics" examines the hidden role of these influential bodies in global public policy. < http://www.kpbooks.com/details.asp?title=Invisible+Governance> Finally, IGP Partner Derrick Cogburn was elected Co-Program Chair and Vice-President Elect for the International Communication Section (ICOMM) of the International Studies Association. In this role, he along with his colleagues will be responsible for planning the vast majority of ISA's program over the next three years. Internet governance research is growing by leaps and bounds and IGP researchers are leading the way, congratulations to all! ================================================================= [8] Upcoming Event: Symposium on Internet Governance and Security ================================================================= Internet Governance and Security: Exploring the Relationship between Global and National Solutions May 17, 2007 2:00-6:00 PM Swiss Embassy, 2900 Cathedral Ave. N.W. (Metro: Red Line, Woodley) Washington DC, USA <http://internetgovernance.org/events.html#Symposium_051707 > This symposium on Internet Governance and Internet security will explore the relationships between global and national Solutions to problems of cyber crime and cyber security. The meeting will focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and national policy making for issues related to the security and privacy of commerce and communication on the Internet. The symposium will be held in Washington, DC, May 17, 2007, beginning at 2:00 pm and running until 6:00 pm. The event will be held in the facilities of the Swiss Embassy. At 6:30, the Swiss Embassy will house a reception for sponsors, organizers, speakers, and invited guests. Three academic institutions are cooperating to define the program: Syracuse University School of Information Studies; the George Mason University Law School's Critical Infrastructure Protection Program; The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne. The meeting coincides with the US module of the EPFL's global Executive Master's in e-governance, which will bring 20 students and participants in the program to Washington. Most cyber security initiatives are undertaken at the national level. But the Internet is a global infrastructure and effective policy often requires a globally coordinated effort. New global institutions such as ICANN and the Internet Governance Forum have been created to meet the need for global coordination and policy development. Older international institutions, such as the ITU and the United Nations, also wish to play a role. And powerful national governments such as the United States and China can often exert international influence over Internet policy. Many times these different sources of authority work at cross purposes or compete for influence. Often there are disagreements or uncertainties about what is the proper role of nations, international organizations, the private sector and the technical community. This symposium will explore these issues, attracting an elite audience of technical experts, policy academics, U.S. and international policy makers in government, and industry players. They will identify and discuss Internet governance issues such as the security of the domain name system (DNSSEC), spam and cybercrime, identity and identification, and private sector security regimes in sectors such as banking. If you would like to attend, please RSVP to Kathryn Allen, at kallen02(a)syr.edu **Agenda** 2:00 Welcome Milton Mueller, Syracuse University iSchool, Internet Governance Project, Host Matthias Finger, Swiss Federal Polytechnical Institute (EPFL) John McCarthy, Critical Infrastructure Protection Program, GMU Law School 2:10*3:30 Panel 1 - Securing the Root: The Politics and Economics of DNSSEC Moderator: Brenden Kuerbis, Syracuse University Paul Vixie, ISC Becky Burr, Wilmer Hale, Washington DC Scott Rose, NIST David Conrad, ICANN/IANA Thierry Moreau, Connotech, Canada Matt Larsen, VeriSign 3:45*4:45 Panel 2 - Taking Charge: Public Sector Plans and Private Sector Priorities John A. McCarthy, George Mason University School of Law Jim Kadtke, John Sabo, IT-ISAC Marcus Sachs, SRI International 5:00*6:00 Panel 3 - National Interest, Global Governance: Which Suits the Internet? David Johnson, New York Law School Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Marc Rotenberg, EPIC Margie Milam, MarkMonitor 6:30 Reception Sponsors: Wilmer Hale and Syracuse University (Invitation only) ============================= [9] Upcoming Event: IGF Consultation ============================= A new round of consultations will take place on the 23 May 2007, in preparation for the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Rio. The meeting will be held at the ITU Tower, Room C. It will be part of a cluster of WSIS related events which will take place in Geneva from 15-25 May, 2007. All stakeholders interested in attending are invited to register online now < http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/edrs/ITU-SG/ edrs15/edrs.registration.form>. The purpose of these consultations is to address the agenda and the programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting. Stakeholders are invited to send in contributions, as an input into these consultations to: igf(a)unog.ch or post their comments in our online discussion section < http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php? board=13.0>. Contributions and discussion posts received by 14 May, 2007 will be reflected in a synthesis paper summarizing the input received. The paper will be made available on the IGF website < http://intgovforum.org> prior to the consultations. ========================= Subscription Information ========================= Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html =============== Privacy Policy =============== The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

1 0

Public Consultation on Terms of Reference for Independent Review of ALAC
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

Dear Community: As you know, the consultation on the independent review terms of reference is scheduled to end today, April 30th. However, since the translations of the Terms of Reference and the announcement of the consultation were not available at the start of the consultation period, I'm happy to inform you that the consultation will remain open through this week - through the 6th May. Those of you who wish to respond in a language other than english should feel free to do so! I hope you will pardon the delay between the english version being posted and the other 3 language versions, and will understand that we are doing our best to provide as much information of this kind in other languages as we can, as quickly as we can. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] The ALAC Forum
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2007

April 30, 2007

Dear Danny: FYI, on the very day - 11 April - that the email you reference went to the forum, that forum became read-only. A notice at the top of the forum archives indicates that the forum has been closed and points to the ALAC mailing list subscription page for those who wish to participate in the discussions. You will notice that changes which correspond have also been made to alac.icann.org. In the next few months new collaboration tools and a consolidation plan for the various online tools currently available to the community will be presented and comments requested. You'll be familiar with the request for a number of features and changes to existing online presences which have been made - stay tuned. On 27/04/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Messages continue to be posted to the ALAC Forum (such > as the message cited below from a registrant located > in Cyprus that uses RegisterFly as a registrar). Does > anyone on the ALAC respond to these queries? Are > these registrants being helped or are they being > ignored? May I ask who on the Committee is > responsible for coordinating a response and where we > might find a log of ALAC responses to queries from the > community? > > To: <alac-forum@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: company name > From: <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:13:45 +0300 > > Hi > I am the owner of the company plazan cosmetics. > Can someone register my company name and add, > uk to the end of it then use it ? > I dont where i satand legally on this matter > > kind regards > Neil Hart > plazan cosmetics > www.plazancosmetics.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0