September 2007 - NA-Discuss

Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 2, 2007

Oct. 2, 2007

Dear Members: I have the honour to provide below the results of the above- referenced vote. With 13 or 14 out of 15 potential votes cast (depending upon the regional selection in question), I can certify this as a quorate result. The results may be verified by the following URL saved on the system which hosts the At-Large Community's elections: http:// www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=LQd3RxzYmVRLkU6DT5DM Members will recall that there was no vote necessary for the African Seat, as only one candidate, Khaled Koubaa of Tunisia, was proposed for that region. Poll Results Poll menu: At-Large Nominating Committee Appointments 2008 Report date: Thu 27 Sep 2007 13:54 UTC Asia/Australasia/Pacific Region Seat Number of voters: 13 Quota: 6.500 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Taiuru, Karaitiana (New Zealand) 7.000 7 53.85 6 46.15 2 lost in round 1 Agarwal, Nirmol (India) 6.000 6 46.15 7 53.85 European Region Seat Number of voters: 14 Quota: 7.000 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Miloshevic, Desiree 11.000 11 78.57 3 21.43 2 lost in round 1 Vande Walle, Patrick 3.000 3 21.43 11 78.57 Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Seat Number of voters: 14 Quota: 7.000 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Rnd3 Pref1 % Pref2 % Pref3 % 1 won in round 1 Gigena, Matias Altamira 7.000 7 50.00 2 14.29 5 35.71 2 lost in round 1 Ricciardi, Sebastian 5.000 5 35.71 7 50.00 2 14.29 3 lost in round 1 Ahon, Erick Iriarte 2.000 2 14.29 5 35.71 7 50.00 North American Seat Number of voters: 14 Quota: 7.000 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Rader, Ross 10.000 10 71.43 4 28.57 2 lost in round 1 Leibovitch, Evan 4.000 4 28.57 10 71.43 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 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

6 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments
by Jacqueline A. Morris Sept. 30, 2007

Sept. 30, 2007

Danny The interesting thing about At Large is that EVERYONE is an individual user. No matter where they work. When they go home, they are individual users and therefore in that role they are represented by the At large, and can represent the At Large. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 14:19 To: ross(a)tucows.com Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments Ross, This has never been an issue about "you". Registrars put their own registrar candidates onto the NonCom. Registries put their own candidates onto the NonCom. Every stakeholder group looks to safeguard their own interests by selecting member representatives from their own community to serve on the NonCom. Apparently, the ALAC is not that bright. As far as I am concerned, you and Desiree Milosevic hail from the supplier camp and ultimately the both of you will likely wind up selecting board directors that favor suppliers over users. By the way, your own registrar constituency is now holding an election to determine their NonCom representative... will you also be running for that seat? --- Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> wrote: > Danny Younger wrote: > > Wendy, > > > > You are correct. Matters were left to the > complete > > discretion of the ALAC, the champion of the user > > interest, that in its wisdom elected the best > possible > > user representatives from the registry and > registrar > > communities. > > > > Perhaps next year you can elect VeriSign's Chuck > Gomes > > to serve as your user representative. > > Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it > many times and its > really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a > fair explanation of > how I will be spending my time in the next few years > and that I should > be given a chance to participate, as a user. > > This was never an issue when you were in the employ > of register.com, why > are you making it an issue now? I understand that > you have issues about > the process, but I really don't understand why you > are making it an > issue about me. > > -ross > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 _______________________________________________ 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 21:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 21:46

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments
by Danny Younger Sept. 30, 2007

Sept. 30, 2007

Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis." These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster. I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership. Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged. We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

9 11

Reflecting a bit on the latest conversation
by Robert Guerra Sept. 30, 2007

Sept. 30, 2007

this is now the second incident where my good intentions have lead to a reaction on a scale quite unanticipated. The first being San juan and the reaction to my comments to the chair.. . Now this nomcom process - and danny's statements and the reaction it has caused. ARGH I'm here to try to contribute in a positive way and develop long term strategies to help others. So - i'll just stay quiet and try to focus my efforts on getting not only people and/or orgs involved in icann, but also for them to put forward submisisons and/or comments. in the end - it is the comment and publication activity that we are measured against, not infighting or procedures. it seems that we have failed in that regard - as I don't think we have submitted any documents and/or comments of substance for the upcoming icann LA meeting. Going forward - might I suggest we focus our energies on producing comments and statements related to ICANN and not devour ourselves like a pack of hyenas . regards Robert

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments
by Robert Guerra Sept. 29, 2007

Sept. 29, 2007

Danny: The candidate you proposed was indeed considered, but did not make the short list. that was not a personal decision of mine, but of the NA ALAC representatives. Informal consultations - due diligence you could call it - took place to assess the candidates being proposed, and if they would be well suited and able to strategically represent users from not only Canada and the USA, but users "everywhere" on the nomcom. Your statement that no consultation was done with those on NA RALO, is in fact wrong. Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done done privately on a one -to-one basis. I will keep the sources confidential, - they can speak out if they wish - but suffice it to say that your candidate, well - got very mixed reviews, in fact some quite negative. Those who got far more favorable reviews - ended up on the short list. As i've mentioned now several times, my person view is that the NA Nomcom candidate that - was elected by a large majority of ALAC members - will be able to well and strategically represent the views from the ALAC on the nomcom. The person in is well known to civil society working in ICANN as a person we can work with, and who has integrity. We will be well served. He has another "hat" - as do many of us as well. So i don't see that as an issue in the least. Indeed this whole discussion reminds me on an ongoing discussion in Canada related to elections canada's stance on allowing veiled women to vote . http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/10/elections-veils.html It's not for the administrator to settle the current societal debate. If I were to do so, I would assume the role that does not belong to me, and above all, usurp the role of Canada's elected politicians." Currently, I do not believe criteria exists as to who can or can not be a candidate for ALAC to select as its nomcom representatives. If you want that changed - please, by all means do suggest that ALS's and ALAC change the rules. In summary - Hey, i didn't support your candidate. I have that right. Due process was followed, and a good, honest and very strategic candidate from Canada was duly elected. Please, respect the decision . If you feel the process could have been better - please, be constructive and suggest changes so that we can improve things going forward. In the meantime, decision has taken place.. let's move forward.. Let's work with Ross, and take up his offer to speak with him on a teleconference. He's keen to hear from the NA RALO, and in fact ALAC as a whole on how he can best represent us. As he shouldn't hold him to a higher standard - let's also arrange consultations with the other ALAC nomcom reps . After all if they are supposed to be our representatives, let's make sure they stay in touch and consult with us. regards Robert On 29-Sep-07, at 2:16 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > Robert, > > Bottom line: You removed a duly nominated candidate > that was duly confirmed from the voting roster, a > candidate with seven years experience within ICANN > defending the public interest, a candidate that > properly submitted his credentials for consideration, > and the only confirmed candidate that hailed from the > United States... all without any consultation with > members of the NARALO discuss list, and without member > consent for such action. > > You also introduced a candidate from the supplier > community surreptitiously without any consultation > with the membership. In my view, your actions > demonstrate that you are not fit for holding office. > > regards, > Danny > > > --- Robert Guerra <lists(a)PRIVATERRA.INFO> wrote: > >> I've been away for the last few days and am only now >> catching up on >> this list's email... >> >> It seems some questions have been raised as to the >> process by which >> the NA ALAC , and in fact ALAC as a whole selected >> the nomcom >> candidate from the NA region. >> >> First,let me describe the process - >> >> The NA ALAC reps held two teleconferences where we >> discussed the >> Nomcom candidates. Beau, Alan and I spent >> considerable time >> discussing the i\, the candidates and additional >> persons we might >> want to consider >> >> The candidate pool came from names proposed on the >> NA list, as well >> as persons suggested by the NA Regional reps. The >> breakdown was thus >> - one person proposed from the NA list, and 5 >> persons suggested from >> the ALAC reps. Of the 6 persons, one candidate was >> removed as they >> had been elected board liason. the rest were >> contacted to confirm >> that indeed they would be willing and able to serve >> the term. Three >> confirmed there were interested, willing and able to >> represent ALAC >> on nomcom. two top candidates were identified and a >> discussion took >> place to see if a consensus candidate could be >> chosen. This was not >> the case, as such the two were submitted to the ALAC >> for them to vote >> on. >> >> Key facts: >> >> - the two proposed candidates both were supported by >> more then one >> ALAC rep >> - The consensus view that developed was that a >> candidate should be >> well familiar with icann and/or able to learn about >> it's politics >> and issues, and ability to represent the user >> voice/view were key >> factors needed in a candidate. >> >> >> My personal choice was Ross, as i'm quite familiar >> with his work with >> the user community in Canada and his involvement in >> CIRA. It is his >> proven track record to be able to represent users on >> the CIRA board >> as well as his support for NCUC and ALAC view that >> led to me voting >> for him. In summary, I voted based on a track >> record in engaging >> users and the user community (in canada) as well as >> a very good >> understand of ICANN, it's politics and nomcom. >> >> Using the recently approved voting rules adopted by >> the ALAC, >> candidates proposed from the regions where a >> consensus was not >> possible were considered by the ALAC. A one week >> open voting & period >> was opened - where opinions were expressed by ALAC >> members on >> candidates, and voting took place.Voting closed a >> particular day, >> after which the results were announced. >> >> The existing icann bylaws state that ALAC should >> appoint candidates - >> and that was done. Though not specifically mentioned >> , consulation >> also tool place - and considerable time, and effort >> was taken to >> review candidates and elect one that fit the >> criteria developed. >> >> Ross, in my opinion - despite what some critics >> might say - has the >> knowledge and ability, integrity and ability to >> represent ALAC and >> users interests well on the nomcom. I believe that >> he will serve >> alac well . >> >> Secondly, let me say that constant critiquing ALAC >> reps is not >> constructive at all. Personally, I have tried to >> bring values of >> consultation and dialogue between those in the NA >> ALS, ALAC members >> and other key constituencies such as NCUC, SSAC and >> many others . I >> see there is great value in collaboration - one >> that can serve to >> bring a stronger voice to users and civil society >> inside the complex >> and very political structure that is ICANN. >> >> >> >> In summary - Key appointments and nominations need >> to be strategic >> and constructive. I believe that the two candidates >> proposed were >> good, and that the better qualified and most >> knowledgeable person who >> indeed will be able to serve all users from the NA >> region has been >> selected. Can we do things better in the future - >> indeed we can. >> let's learn from this experience and build a better >> process for the >> 08/09 nomcom selection process >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your > story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > http://sims.yahoo.com/

2 1

At-Large Global Summit
by Danny Younger Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

Just spotted the At-Large Global Summit Page at http://icannwiki.org/ICANN_Ensemble We should talk some more about this. Has a WG list been set up to accommodate focused discussion yet? Sorry if I missed any earlier notices... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

1 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments
by Danny Younger Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

Vittorio, Re: "appointing to the Nomcom a key employee of one of the biggest registrars" It looks like the ALAC has also seen fit to appoint to the Noncom a key employee of one the biggest registries -- Afilias. The last time that I checked, Desiree Miloshevic served as the International Affairs and Policy Advisor for Afilias, the registry operator for .info as well as being a back-end provider for other registries. Has her employment status changed? Did these candidates provide Statements of Interest that revealed their employment history? and why exactly is the ALAC electing supplier-side representatives to the NonCom? Out of the billions of users out there, couldn't they find a sufficient number of suitable "user" candidates? The issue is bigger than possible malfeasance in an election process; it makes me wonder if "popularity contests" have replaced suitable due diligence in what should have been a very serious process. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments
by Danny Younger Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

Siavash, I appreciate your comments about the wiki (with its editing possibilities) being an improper tool. When the ALAC Nominations page was first put up it was showing four possible North American Regional candidates: Hugh Dierker, Evan Leibovich, Michael Geist and Wendy Seltzer, and that indeed matched the correspondence on the NARALO discussion list. It appears that the ALAC nominations page text was edited by Robert Guerra on September 18, resulting in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate (the only candidate from the United States) being removed from the roster. While I am sure that an explanation will be forthcoming, I would recommend to the ALAC and its respective Secretariats to take heed of the suggestion put forth by Elisabeth Porteneuve who in her capacity as Secretariat for the DNSO has successfully managed numerous election processes. regards, Danny --- Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah(a)irnic.ir> wrote: > I, too, as a person who voted on NomComm > appointments, am disturbed by > what I'm hearing. I missed the last telephone > conference so I assumed that > the process for drawing up the final list of > candidates had been clearly > agreed upon and duly executed. It seems to me that > the wiki, with its > editing possibilities, is not the proper tool for > carrying out a formal > process such as finalizing an election list. The > final authoritative list, > whether it conformed to RALO wishes or not, must > have been properly > announced by the Chair(or the proper responsible > substitute) before voting > took place. > Siavash > > > Hi, > > Following is my "personal" comments as an ALAC > member who voted on this. > > > > I think that Danny's and Darlene's question about > the process is > > valid and requires good explanation. I thought the > candidates > > on the voting website were the valid ones - I > should have > > examined more carefully in the end. If I may, I > was on the road > > and just voted on the fly, but was convinved the > candidates were > > all qualified persons. I did not have time to > check the NARALO > > wiki, and I did not think it was necesarry for me > to do so. > > This is not saying that I am not responsible for > the result, though. > > > > I was charing the ALAC meeting on Sep 11, and > handed over > > my responsibility to the Chair/Vice Chair after > that. But I still > > feel responsible to implement what we agreed. > > > > Now, I urge the persons in charge who setup the > voting > > to come up with a reasonable explanation, and if > failing so, I think > > we should hold the final decision to NomCom. > > > > I personally have little problem having registrar > or other consitiuency > > person to be nomiated to NomCom from ALAC, if he > or she meets > > the criteria we set and selected through a > legitimate way. > > > > But, until a good explanation is made, our > accoutability is at stake > > and therefore we should not conclude this. > > > > izumi (still on the road in Europe with limited > connection time) > > > > 2007/9/28, Thompson, Darlene > <DThompson(a)gov.nu.ca>: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I have just researched Danny's comments below and > can confirm what he is > >> saying. I have just listened to the transcript > of our telephone > >> conference of Sept. 10 and there was no mention > of Ross Rader, just > >> Evan, Eric (is it Eric or Hugh?) and Michael (as > per Danny's list). > >> There has been absolutely no on-list activity > mentioning Ross > >> whatsoever. > >> > >> I, personally, have no problem with having Ross > in this position. On > >> the other hand I, too, have serious reservations > about the opacity of > >> the process. We had three names put forward, two > of which were > >> confirmed. I would definitely like to know how > this happened with > >> complete disregard for input from the NARALO. If > processes are put in > >> place, they should be followed or else what is > the point of us putting > >> our time and effort into this at all? > >> > >> Darlene > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Danny > >> Younger > >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:24 PM > >> To: NA Discuss; At-Large Worldwide > >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting > for ALAC > >> NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments > >> > >> Dear Members, > >> > >> The North American community is entitled to an > >> explanation of the voting results for our region > that > >> saw a supplier-side registrar representative > elected > >> whose name was never once introduced for > candidacy on > >> the NARALO discussion list. > >> > >> The minutes of the last ALAC meeting state: > >> "It was decided that the RALOs would provide > their > >> advice and recommendations by the end of this > week > >> (NLT 16st September). There would then be a vote > >> online using instant runoff for the candidates of > each > >> region wherever there is more than one candidate > >> proposed from a region." > >> > >> The North American region advanced three names: > Eric > >> Dierker (confirmed), Michael Geist (at last > report was > >> "pending confirmation", and Evan Leibovitch > >> (confirmed). > >> > >> The current NARALO Wiki contains only two names: > >> > >> Hugh Dierker [USA] > >> current chair of the GNSO's General Assembly > >> Proposed by Danny Younger > >> Confirmed > >> > >> Evan Leibovich [Canada] > >> ALS Representative, CLUE (Canada) > >> Proposed by Beau & Robert > >> Confirmed > >> > >> > https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?na_nominating_committee_candidates > >> _2007 > >> > >> You will note that Ross Rader's name is not > mentioned > >> therein, yet suddenly he has been elected without > >> member ALSs and North American individual > participants > >> in the RALO even being aware of his candidacy. > >> > >> Further, voting results show that Eric Dierker's > name > >> was never even voted upon, notwithstanding the > fact > >> that his bio/credentials were submitted for > review. > >> > >> I find: > >> (1) the opaqueness of this process outrageously > >> disturbing, > >> (2) the voting process that saw candidates having > >> their names not included as perverse in the > extreme, > >> (3) the result (the election of registry and > registrar > >> representatives instead of user representatives) > as a > >> vile and deplorable abuse of trust > >> > >> I, and likely the Ombudsman as well, await an > >> explanation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________________________________________ > >> ____________ > >> Need a vacation? Get great deals > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

1 0

Outreach, et al
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

Well, no worries. I'm discouraged by this whole process enough that I won't be complaining on this front again. It will be interesting to see when the next "outreach" happens again in the NARALO as I'm sure that now it WON'T happen and I am no longer willing to put myself forward for all of the sniping. Good luck, 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 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:49 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th InternationalPublicMeeting Hopefully the email I sent between this one below and the present one will help to answer some of these points. Since the NARALO met only in June, it has of course met in the last three years. I presume you are excepting this meeting from consideration for whatever reason. NARALO had opportunities to meet before forming up - most recently earlier in the year, only a couple of months before the San Juan meeting, and declined the opportunity to do so. Further, and this is particularly important: ICANN's model is not that work gets done at F2F meetings - but the opposite; every other community does the vast majority of its work between F2F meetings. It isn't sustainable for At-Large to do the reverse of what all other communities are in the habit of doing. Civil society groups in ICANN, in particular in the NCUC, do a considerable amount of work between ICANN meetings and without any travel support at all. My strong suggestion to everyone is to look for ways to work without requiring face-to-face meetings to the extent that is practicable. On 19 Sep 2007, at 15:52, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > Nick, > > Maybe because now the NARALO will now be going 3 years without a > meeting, which the other regions would not be put through, either. > > NARALO didn't meet before forming up (although LAC got to meet twice); > therefore, saving ICANN money. Now that we did what ICANN wanted and > rushed about getting formed up, we are being denied the opportunity > and > means to do outreach for the next three years (which we asked to be > able > to do), thereby stagnating. > > This isn't very encouraging. > > Darlene > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick > Ashton-Hart > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:13 AM > To: RJGlass | America@Large; Evan Leibovitch > Cc: Thompson, Darlene; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th > InternationalPublic Meeting > > RJ, why would this surprise you? Why would you expect to be hosted > for a > NARALO meeting at two ICANN meetings in a row? No other region would > receive such treatment; the budget simply doesn't make that possible. > > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > Office Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > Office Fax: +41 (22) 594 8544 > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > 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 > > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida(a)gmail.com> > To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> > Cc: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)gov.nu.ca>, "At-Large Worldwide" > <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:51:35 -0400 > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Schedule Posted for ICANN's 30th International > Public Meeting > > First, I'm not surprised but I am disturbed that ICANN failed to > host a > NARALO meeting. > > Anyway, I presume we'll try to be brief yet functional on these > matters. > > I think when you announce the idea, you should solicit input on > what the > ALSs want to get out of the summit. One session on opening day > would be > good, and one more later in the week, possibly 3 brief meetings > would be > better than one. > > aloha, > RJ > > On 9/18/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >> >> Thompson, Darlene wrote: >> >>> I'm thinking that the sooner the better for the first one so that we > can >>> all get on the same page and do further planning throughout. >>> >>> I'm thinking more than one session will be needed. >>> >>> Anybody else have thoughts on this? >> >> My suggestion is for at least three things: >> >> 1) Specific inclusion of a Summit status report and discussion on the >> ALAC meeting agenda (whenever that takes place) >> >> 2) A public meeting to introduce the concept to all ICANN > constituencies >> (early in the week) >> >> 3) at least eight hours of planning, of which at least one has Nick > (or >> someone else from ICANN staff) present. Some of this will probably be > a >> small enough group that it can meet in a hotel room rather than >> requiring the expense of a formal meeting room. >> >> - Evan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > ------------------------- > AmericaAtLarge.org > RJPacific.com > DDMF.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 _______________________________________________ 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

4 5

ICANN to Issue Advisory Regarding Transferring Domains Between Registrars, Asks for Public Comment
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 19 September 2007 ICANN has observed that there is confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (“Transfer Policy”). The purpose of this Notice of Intent to Issue an Advisory regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy is to allow interested parties 30 days to comment on the proposed advisory (which can be viewed at: http://www.icann.org/ announcements/proposed-advisory-19sep07.htm). ICANN will consider all comments received at the close of the 30-day comment period. Interested parties have until 19 October 2007 to submit comments at retransfers-comments(a)icann.org. Posted comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/retransfers-comments/. The purpose of the proposed advisory is to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. Developed through ICANN’s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy was approved unanimously by ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another upon request. All ICANN- accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. With over 900 ICANN-accredited registrars operating in the marketplace, offering a myriad of services, consumers have a diversity of options for the provision of registration services, from full service registration packages with web-hosting options, to bargain registration packages providing minimal customer service. However, this diversity of options cannot be fully appreciated by consumers if the provisions of the Transfer Policy are interpreted and applied inconsistently by registrars, thereby preventing consumers from freely transferring their domain names when they choose to do so. The Transfer Policy allows domain name holders to transfer their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another, except under nine limited circumstances. Registrar transfer denials that are not based on the nine reasons enumerated in the Transfer Policy discourage competition, create confusion, encourage abuse and violate the Transfer policy. The purpose of the proposed advisory is to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. The Transfer Policy has proven to be a valuable resource for consumers enabling them to exercise freedom of choice in the domain name registration marketplace. For the benefit of consumers, registrars, registries and other interested parties, ICANN issued today’s proposed advisory to clarify the limited circumstances under which the Transfer Policy allows registrars to deny transfer requests. Comments regarding the proposed advisory are encouraged. ICANN is aware that the GNSO’s Transfers Working Group is currently studying several issues related to the Transfer Policy with the intention of recommending language modifications to the GNSO Council. However, the purpose of ICANN’s proposed advisory is to clarify existing policy. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 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