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

Transcriptions
by Thompson, Darlene July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

Hi Nick, Do you happen to know if there are going to be transcriptions from the ALAC meetings that were held in San Juan? If so, do you have any kind of a feeling as to when those might be available? Thanks a bunch! D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

2 1

Second Tuesday of the Month
by Bret Fausett July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Dear Colleagues, Please reserve the second Tuesday of each month for a regular ICANN NARALO conference call. An updated schedule of dates and times is available here: http://www.trumba.com/calendars/NARALO We will send out reminders and call in numbers a week in advance of each meeting. Bret

2 2

NARALO 9th July Teleconference Summary
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

We're happy to tell you that the summary of the teleconference yesterday is now posted at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?meeting_summary_9_july_2007 -- 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

4 6

Are you planning on going to the LA ICANN?
by Dharma Dailey July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hey All, While we are trying to plan for the outreach activities in LA, it would be helpful to know who is interested in going. Would you go if there was no funding to go? or partial funding? can you only come if you are fully funded? Are any of you planning on attending no matter what? Or not going for love or money? -Dharma

6 5

Revised - Internal ALAC Rules of procedure
by Robert Guerra July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

I'm attaching a - substantially - revised version of the internal ALAC rules of procedure that I circulated yesterday. The updated document is pretty well a complete rewrite, one that incorporates : * A better organization of the document * Section has been added to better define responsibilities & qualifications of Officers, Liaisons and appointments. * Officers, Liaisons and appointments need to file conflict of interest statement * A more detailed description of the duties of the chairperson * Updated Quorum section * Revised section on meetings * Code of conduct section has been added (as adopted by NA RALO) Internal references still need to be fixed, so the document isn't quite yet "there" - but it is, in my opinion , substantially improved . I look forward to comments (if any) from those of you in NA RALO.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

3 3

Board liaison report
by Vittorio Bertola July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

This is the Board liaison report for the ALAC call scheduled for today. I am sending it to the regional lists as well, for those of you who might not be subscribed to the global At Large list. ===== The Board met by teleconference on June 18. The two issues affecting the At Large discussed on the call were: 1.1) The Ombudsman report 06-317, on the Ynternet.org case. As reported to the ALAC members on June 19, the Board discussed the Ombudsman's recommendations, and found itself mostly in agreement with the ALAC's points of view. Especially, the Board does not seem to have any desire to enter into the substance of our deliberations in terms of ALS approval or rejection. The Board agreed to draft a formal reply to the Ombudsman in the following weeks (I still haven't seen it). 1.2) The GNSO Review Working Group (of which I am a member). The Board took notice of the release of a draft document being posted for subsequent discussion in San Juan. I already posted a detailed report and solicitation for comments on June 19, see here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q… I am still awaiting any collective opinion by the Committee. Other issues discussed were: 1.3) ICANN changing bank; 1.4) information on a preliminary delegation request for .kp (North Korea); 1.5) ICANN's role in the IPv4->IPv6 transition (see below); 1.6) a request for information on the RAA amendment process, which was deferred to San Juan (see below). Full minutes for the call can be found here: http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-18jun07.htm The Board then met again during the San Juan meeting. The main issues affecting the At Large on the agenda were: 2.1) Establishment of the North American RALO. As the MoU had been successfully negotiated between North American ALSes and ICANN, the resolution was straightforward: to approve such MoU. It was actually passed by acclamation, this being also the moment when all RALOs are established and the ALAC becomes final and not interim any more. There were celebrating comments by Roberto Gaetano and by Vanda Scartezini. After a quick consultation by Skype chat with some North American people - some of which wanted to celebrate, while one wanted us to make a critical comment about the lack of actual power for users - I worked out a spoken statement on the fly, which was transcribed as follows: <<I think that the real comment is that apart from the fact that finally we are removing the "interim" qualification from the ALAC, so we are assuming our role, that this was really the result of a work that went on for several years. For many people. And even -- actually, it was not just a practical work. It was really a work of people getting to know each other and learning how to live together. In some cases, maybe having real disagreements, having strong fights, but also starting to build what in the end could be one of the most precious values for ICANN, which is an avenue for collecting real input from consumers, from general public, from users of the Internet of all kinds. And I think that now the challenge is for ICANN to understand how to make good use of that, not just to receive this kind of input, but to actually listen to it. Thank you.>> There is general satisfaction in the Board and in the staff for these achievements, and even some preliminary "pour parler" in terms of recognizing a somewhat more prominent role for the At Large in the ICANN map, once the ALAC review process is concluded and if the review is positive (2009?). 2.2) Protection of registrants This was my main working item in San Juan and in the preceding weeks. In Lisbon, we managed to get a resolution by the Board, committing the CEO to proposing a process for revising the RAA - the contract that establishes reciprocal responsibilities between ICANN and registrars, thus defining the way the domain registration market works for consumers - by San Juan, to strengthen protections to registrants. This was accompanied by several staff actions, for example the establishment of a system for escrowing the information about who registered which domain, in case of failure of a registrar; this was already required by contracts, but had never been implemented. Also, there were some discussions on which instruments could be used to enforce compliance with contracts by registrars; in the past, the only option was the "nuclear" option, ie deaccreditation, but some intermediate steps might help a lot. Finally, there have been discussions on what should ICANN's role be in case of a registry going bankrupt; should ICANN ensure continuity of failed TLDs, either temporarily or permanently? Should it have emergency systems to cope with technical failures by registries? Etc. (comments / statements on these points would be welcome). The main issue, however, was the revision of the RAA; registrars are extremely sensitive to any change in this contract, which basically defines their business, so that no change has been made since 2001; in any case, their relationship with ICANN implies that any change in the contract must be approved by them; in other words, they can veto any change. I have been asking several times, in the period between Lisbon and San Juan, about the status of this resolution; staff was having discussions with the registrars and the Board was told that all of this would have been up for debate in San Juan. The proposal was first presented by staff to the Board on Sunday; it envisaged a negotiation process between staff and registrars, with a subsequent public comment period. I was immediately vocal against the proposal, as it would practically have excluded us and the general public from having any serious input into the negotiation. My initial proposal, which had been already exposed in Lisbon, was to set up a small working group consisting of staff, registrars, us and other interested parties, to work out a consensus on which changes were necessary, and other possible actions (for example, changes in the accreditation process, education programs, staff activities etc.) The initial reaction to my objection wasn't very warm, as people were concerned about not alienating the opening that registrars had been making in accepting to revise the RAA in certain sections. In the workshop on Monday, the same proposal was presented, and I was again quite hard against it, clearly saying that it was unacceptable. This provoked irked reactions by some registrars from the floor. Transcript here: http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/files/sanjuan/SanJuan-ProtectionOfRegistrants-… In any case, when the first draft of the resolution came up for discussion for the Board (always on the same lines), I tried to gather consensus among Directors for changing it into something better for us. Thus, the next draft of the process required that staff would hold a consultation with us and with the general public, which would gather input on what should be improved, not just about the RAA but also about related policies and processes. This would be used as input for the negotiation between staff and registrars; the resulting draft RAA would then be subject to comment by us and by the public before consideration by the Board. The new text was introduced to the Board right on Friday morning, before the beginning of the Board meeting. I still was dissatisfied with the part of draft that required the negotiation to address "many of the concerns" raised by the public, as that could have been used to escape some key issues. So, right in the middle of the meeting, I drafted an amendment, got its form checked by ICANN legal staff by IM, then took the floor to ask for it, also thanks to a Board member (Peter Dengate Thrush) who shared the concern and formally moved my amendment. We got the amendment accepted and the amended resolution was unanimously passed, with much satisfaction. Now we still have to see how the resolution will be implemented; for the moment, there are no clear plans yet. The public attention devoted to the Registerfly case has been fundamental in making ICANN receptive to our positions on the matter, so we have to keep up the attention. In the ALAC meeting, I agreed to lead an At Large working group to draft our response to this consultation, and I again invite people to join. 2.3) IDNs In the weeks leading to San Juan, I had expressed concerns about the possible disconnect between the different parts of such a complex project, and the apparent lack of a comprehensive program plan. Several Board members agreed, and staff was asked to present a "state of the art" in San Juan. I will not enter into details (our IDN liaison already posted reports), but the Board decided to take the following actions: - It authorized the procedures to add experimental IDN TLDs in the root zone. These will be domains of the form ".test" in various scripts and languages, which will be used for tests only (no user registrations possible). Elaborate procedures have been created to allow for immediate interruption of the test, and removal of the entries, if anything bad happened; I can't imagine what could go wrong, but still, in theory, ICANN is legally not allowed to alter the root zone on the fly as it likes, so there was the need for policies to allow this for the test domains in case of an emergency. - It received the list of questions on the possible introduction of ccTLD-like IDNs, that was elaborated jointly by the ccNSO and the GAC. This is seen as a possible shortcut to meet the enormous pressure for some IDN TLDs to be added asap, while letting the full policy making process for new TLDs to proceed at normal speed. The Board asked for answers to these questions (in the first draft of the resolution it only asked to the ccNSO and the GAC, but I made sure that the ALAC was explicitly added as one of the respondents). I recommend that the ALAC initiates as soon as possible the work to prepare and approve such answers. - It encouraged further discussions on the few remaining technical issues, though it seems clear that it's not the technicalities that are slowing down the process. 2.4) Transition to IPv6 One Board member raised the issue - which is going to become quite hot - of the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, and specifically: a) how to encourage the transition, which still is not really happening; b) how to allocate the scarce remaining batches of IPv4 addresses. Current estimates are that IPv4 addresses will be exhausted around 2010 - very soon. Some parts of the world which traditionally obtained less IPv4 addresses are suggesting that they should be reserved some IPv4 blocks, so that the transition (and its costs) are first approached by the developed countries. It is in any case likely that a black market of IPv4 addresses will develop, with those companies and entities who got a lot in faraway times making plenty of money by reselling them. ICANN does not have a huge role in this, since policies for allocation are regional in nature; in any case, the Board wants staff to keep an eye over the situation and do what is possible to speed up the transition. 2.5) Reform of the GNSO The draft document was discussed in a workshop in San Juan. There seems to be agreement towards moving to consensus-based working groups, but much less agreement in reducing the political role of the Council, or in revising the number of constituencies. The NCUC has released some comments (which I forwarded to the WG after our meeting) and is asking for our position on this matter. For the moment, the Board does not have an opinion and is still waiting for the Working Group to examine the feedback provided in San Juan and finalize the report. The other issues discussed were: 2.6) Approval of the ICANN Budget. The new budget foresees a decrease in the ICANN fee paid by registrants from $0.22 per domain to $0.20, still without any plan to charge domain tasting registrations. The budget was approved by the Board, but it needs approval by 2/3 of the accredited registrars to become final. There's no doubt that it will be approved. 2.7) Consultation on transparency. We should keep an eye over this. We released statements on this matter in the past, and it would be worth at least to resubmit them. 2.8) Appointment of Kevin Wilson as new ICANN CFO (approved). 2.9) Renewal of the .coop registry agreement (approved). 2.10) Change in fees for the .tel registry (approved). The full transcript of the Board meeting can be found here: http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/files/sanjuan/SanJuan-ICANNBoardMtg-29June07.t… The text of the approved resolutions can be found here: http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm Some other issues were discussed, outside of the agenda, during the private Board workshops or on the Board mailing list: 2.11) The fellowship program. It was implemented in San Juan for the first time, and I was asked to welcome the fellows; almost 40 people from various groups (ccTLDs, NGOs, governments) and several developing countries attended the meeting thanks to the program. I expressed our full support for this idea, which some Board members really championed; even if At Large members are excluded from the program (as we already have our travel programs), it is a good way to increase inclusiveness. 2.12) .TEL contract amendment. .TEL is asking for permission to limit the information displayed in their Whois service, to comply with applicable (UK) privacy laws. The IP and business constituencies, as in the broader Whois discussions, push for ICANN to force registrars and registries to ignore their laws, through a procedure called "reconciling Whois policies and national laws" (as if they were at the same level). I stressed that it's not in ICANN's power to change national laws, so any effort spent on anything but "do whatever your national law says" is basically a waste of registrants' money. Anyway, this is not on the Board agenda yet, pending advice/updates on the above policy. 2.13) The new gTLD process. Again, for the moment it is not on the Board agenda yet, but of course it's "the" issue for ICANN since it was created. There is an expectation to receive a final proposal from the GNSO as soon as possible. The ALAC should be prepared to have an opinion asap, drawing on the current drafts published by the GNSO. The next Board call, planned for July 17, will possibly be cancelled. The Board will meet again for a retreat in Los Angeles, on August 10-11. The agenda is still unknown, but it is likely to contain the issue of how to select the next ICANN Chair, how can ICANN work in the afterVint, and long term strategies and vision; other issues that might or might not come up are the new gTLD process, the IGF in Rio, the signing of the root zone, the status of the Joint Project Agreement with the US Government. I will post further information when I will have it. As usual, feel free to make questions or comments. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] Independent At-Large Website
by Annette Muehlberg July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Complementary sounds good. But we have to keep our working structures efficient and this is why we should discuss how to best run our website and make sure we have not to do similar work on different spots. And we have to have the possibility to post what we think needs to be posted/published right away. The only possibility to do so is on an independent website. We already discussed, that the ICANN website should contain all the standard information on ALAC/RALO members, ALS accreditation procedure etc. Now, that all RALOs are in place we should work on a very efficient working structure including the need of regional focused work as well as the united work on certain issues on a global level. Best Annette

4 4

Telcon codes 9th July
by At Large Staff July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

We had already changed the codes when the decision was taken to keep the call for today open so please find below again full access details including the new code which is - 1335206 *PARTICIPANT INFORMATION* ------------------------------ *PARTICIPANT ACCESS INFORMATION* ------------------------------ Please join MR NICK ASHTON HART on JUL-09-2007 (Monday) at 07:00 PM UNIVERSAL TIME. Access information is below. *AUDIO PARTICIPANT ACCESS* ------------------------------ CALL DATE: JUL-09-2007 (Monday) CALL TIME: 07:00 PM UNIVERSAL TIME DURATION: 1 hr LEADER: MR NICK ASHTON HART *DIAL-IN NUMBERS:* *Country* * * *Toll Numbers* *Freephone/ Toll Free Number* AUSTRALIA 61-2-8211-1396 1-800-758-196 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-80-003 0800-677-861 BELGIUM 32-1-150-0312 0800-4-9471 BRAZIL 0800-8912026 CHILE 1230-020-2453 CHINA* 10800-712-1202 10800-120-1202 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156439 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-16 DENMARK 45-7014-0239 8088-2100 FINLAND 358-106-33-149 0-800-1-12771 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-76 080-563-9909 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-76 080-563-9909 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-75-25-35 080-563-9909 GERMANY 49-69-2222-3198 0800-101-6627 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0674 00800-12-6609 HONG KONG 852-2286-5642 800-968-764 HUNGARY 06-800-17241 INDIA 000-800-852-1218 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3502 IRELAND 353-1-247-5274 1800-992-870 ISRAEL 1-80-9303035 ITALY 39-02-3601-0953 800-985-849 JAPAN 81-3-5539-5164 0034-800-40-0719 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1351 MALAYSIA 1-800-80-8124 MEXICO 001-866-627-0579 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8530 0800-023-4392 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4646 0800-447-834 NORWAY 47-21-59-00-49 800-15497 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072083 POLAND 00-800-1211184 PORTUGAL 8008-12439 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-9873011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9208 800-120-4284 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-16 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-93384 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1062 00798-14800-6326 SPAIN 34-91-414-40-78 800-098-194 SWEDEN 46-8-505-96-328 0200-897-068 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4210 0800-000-782 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7358 00801-137-694 THAILAND 001-800-1206-65092 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9016 0800-279-3590 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3216 0800-279-3590 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2116 0800-279-3590 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7950-6551 0800-279-3590 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1416 0800-279-3590 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3431 USA 1-210-795-1143 866-297-1588 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-2797 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. PASSCODE: 1335206 For security reasons, the passcode and the leader's name will be required to join your call.

2 1

Recordings of Lisbon At-Large meetings
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

FYI, the recordings are so large that I have not been able to upload them to the wiki. I have found a way around this problem and I'm testing it - the recordings will then be posted via URL on the wikis, though they will be stored on a different server. Sorry for the delay... -- 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] [At-Large] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

>Could we send a statement to the board... We certainly could. But could I suggest that if you are (and others) are changing the discussion that we are having, that you change the SUBJECT line as well? The current thread has nothing to do with domain tasting. Alan At 08/07/2007 06:53 PM, Michael Maranda wrote: >Some have argued the increase was trivial, given people's intuition >of adjustments for inflation, etc., and also with a sense that >prices were stable for a period (after the initial decline). As you >would gather from my prior post, its pretty much nonsense (computing >and teleconnectivity costs should be going down, down down). > >The material on price increases well in advance of the actual >increase taking effect is disgusting and disturbing. They appear to >be taking a page from the Oil cartels. > >Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts >were won in part by expectations of price decreases. > >At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board >of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to >build up our credibility through "productivity" first. > >Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to >the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the >official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship >demands better? > >On 7/8/07, Danny Younger ><<mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com>dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the >principle is more important. > >The price increase (which won't go into effect until >October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already >raising their prices in anticipation of the price >increase: > >"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain >names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to >recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT >Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. >Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per >registration year on July 9." > ><http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.…>http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.… > > >What's more important than all of this is the issue of >bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable >ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of >"throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains >accountable to no one. > >Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much >matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or >anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the >voice of the people. > >Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of >domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the >more names that will eventually be registered as some >of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits >for the registries, profits for the registrars, >profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new >registrations last year (a good chunk of them the >direct result of tasting activities). > >Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting >up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at >every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill >a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle. > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________Ready >for the edge of your seat? >Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. ><http://tv.yahoo.com/>http://tv.yahoo.com/ > > > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter >Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance >Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition >President, Association For Community Networking > >Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access >Alliance: ><http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org>http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

2 1