November 2008 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
by Danny Younger Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

Alan, The Board was told by Kurt Pritz that the only way forward on the RAA amendments was by way of a consensus policy approach as outlined in section 4.3.4 of the contract. This is clearly incorrect. The Board has other options. It can exercise its right to put through an updated agreement, and it can exercise its right to selectively put through amendments that technically are not "updates" by way of the amendments/waiver clause. I have never argued for unilaterally adopting the entire package of proposed amendments; I have only argued that recourse to the consensus policy approach by itself is far too time consuming, and that we need to get an explanation from Staff as to why they have not advised the board of the other options available under the current contract. --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" <lists(a)privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 3:23 PM > Danny, I understand that all items are not ideal for > everyone. > > But I am having trouble reconciling your demand for an > explanation of why the Board did not exercise one of their > means of unilaterally putting the amendments into force and > instead sent them to the GNSO. If you wanted the Board to > act, is that not the same as the GNSO approving them as a > group? > > Alan > > At 24/11/2008 11:43 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Alan, > > > > There are some amendments which are simply not > acceptable. Let's consider a specific example cited in > my own public comments as well as in the comments of the IPC > and the US DOC: > > > > "Also, Registrar shall either (1) include in the > database the name and postal address, e-mail address, and > voice telephone number provided by the customer of any > privacy service or licensee of any proxy registration > service offered or made available by Registrar or its > affiliate companies in connection with each registration or > (2) display a conspicuous notice to such customers at the > time an election is made to utilize such > > privacy or proxy service that their data is not being > escrowed." > > > > The second clause in this amendment must be eliminated > as it is antithetical to the interest of all registrants. > > > > These amendments must be debated by the ALAC > one-by-one so that specific language changes can be > introduced as required. Those that require no changes, that > are useful, may be introduced either by way of the > amendments and waivers clause or by way of the Right to > Substitute Updated Agreement Clause... but this should apply > only to those amendments that enjoy broad consensus-based > support and which haven't been subject to any posted > objections. > > > > It would be appropriate for the ALAC to do a > line-by-line examination of all the amendments and to reach > a collective determination as to which are supported as is, > which must be modified, and which must be totally rejected > (of course, the underlying assumption is that ALAC members > will actually engage in on-line discussion which is probably > a bad assumption to be making). > > > > I have to take issue with your use of the phrase > "already agreed-upon RAA changes" as I have seen > no evidence of agreement on specific amendments in the very > few comments made at ALAC sessions. Perhaps you could > elaborate on what you meant in this phrase... > > > > Thanks, > > Danny > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > From: Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, "Robert > Guerra" <lists(a)privaterra.info>, "Brendler, > Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 10:59 AM > > > Danny, my understanding was that there was > general belief > > > that the proposed RAA amendments were woefully > inadequate > > > and incomplete, but that in their own right, they > would be > > > useful. Since your 2nd questions focuses on > finding out why > > > the Board has not already taken the unilateral > paths that > > > you believe viable to enact the revised RAA, I > would assume > > > that you support this position. > > > > > > The position that I have taken within the GNSO is > that ALAC > > > wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA changes > put in > > > place immediately (since sooner would require a > Wayback > > > machine with more functionality than our current > one). And > > > that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive > RAA > > > review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that > the entire > > > review/revision does not get bogged down until > the next > > > millennium. > > > > > > If you or others feel that this is not a > reasonable > > > position to take, please provide specific > guidance. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 24/11/2008 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > Alan, > > > > > > > > As I, and doubtless others, have no idea > what position > > > the ALAC has adopted with respect to the RAA > amendments, > > > could we trouble you to articulate the official > position, > > > and the specific actions that the ALAC will > support in the > > > GNSO? > > > > > > > > Many of us have major issues with a lot of > the > > > amendments and we don't want to see these put > through on > > > a blanket basis. It's bad enough that Staff > is in bed > > > with the registrars; we don't need to have > the ALAC > > > pushing an ill-considered program that gives the > registrars > > > everything that they want while the views of the > rest of the > > > community are routinely ignored. > > > > > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg > > > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Alan Greenberg > > > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > > > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, > "Robert > > > Guerra" <lists(a)privaterra.info>, > "Brendler, > > > Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> > > > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" > > > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:19 > AM > > > > > Although not answering any of > Danny's > > > questions (but > > > > > acknowledging > > > > > where were are today with the RAA > amendments > > > being punted > > > > > to the > > > > > GNSO), I do note that as ALAC Liaison, > I am > > > taking what I > > > > > hope will > > > > > be successful action to fast-path the > first round > > > of RAA > > > > > amendments > > > > > through the GNSO and forwarded to the > Board for > > > quick > > > > > approval. > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > At 24/11/2008 07:14 AM, Danny Younger > wrote: > > > > > >Dear North American reps to the > ALAC: > > > > > > > > > > > >The entire point of having a RALO > is so that > > > grassroots > > > > > input may be > > > > > >brought to the attention of the > ALAC. There > > > were > > > > > several items that > > > > > >I raised that have not made it onto > the ALAC > > > Agenda for > > > > > tomorrow's meeting: > > > > > > > > > > > >1. the failure to inaugurate a > comprehensive > > > review of > > > > > registrar > > > > > >accreditation processes > > > > > >2. a request for a formal > explanation from > > > ICANN Staff > > > > > as to why > > > > > >(1) invoking the amendments and > waivers > > > clause in the > > > > > RAA may not be > > > > > >pursued and (2) why an updated RAA > agreement > > > may not be > > > > > substituted. > > > > > >As both of these options are > permitted by > > > contract, we > > > > > need to know > > > > > >why Staff has chosen not to pursue > this > > > viable course > > > > > of action. > > > > > >3. a response to users that have > posted > > > comments to > > > > > the RAA-WG. > > > > > > > > > > > >As reps for the NARALO you have a > duty to > > > raise the > > > > > issues that have > > > > > >been brought forth by the > membership and to > > > place these > > > > > issues on > > > > > >the agenda if they merit > discussion, > > > otherwise there is > > > > > no point > > > > > >whatsoever in having these RALO > structures or > > > an ALAC. > > > > > > > > > > > >see my orginal comments at > > > > > > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i > > > cann.org/2008q4/004938.html > > > > > > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i > > > cann.org/2008q4/004939.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > > > > > >NA-Discuss mailing list > > > > > >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg > > > e-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > >Visit the NARALO online at > > > http://www.naralo.org > > > > > >------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [Summit-wg] Proposal to Summit-WG: Mapping Internet Users and ICANN Governance Issues
by Dharma Dailey Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: > Hi Mohammad and Dharma, > > thanks for your suggestions. I doubt whether we have any means and > capacities to do research related to Internet user's or issues. But > we did > a survey already on what ALSes prefer for and expect from the Summit. > And ALSes were obliged to fill-in the Questionnaire - as a pre- > condition - > to be invited to participate at the Summit in Mexico. And I am sure > participation issues will be on the agenda there. Is there anything in the questionnaires that is worth reflecting back to the community as a whole? > > > I appreciate your idea, Dharma, to "do some informal mapping on two > issues: >>> Who are Internet Users? and What ICANN issues are internet users >>> most >>> concerned about? I believe that doing some preparation to gain >>> clarity on these two fundamental questions prior to the Summit >>> (...). > > Any such inputs from RALOs and any substantial preparation to the > Summit is highly welcome. Thanks and Great. I will move forward developing a survey and mapping tool. Most likely in development for December and circulation for January. Perhaps, Mohamed you and I can go back and forth a bit off the list. I'd like to hear what you are thinking of capturing in more detail. Best Regards, Dharma > > > best regards, > Wolf > > > mbashir(a)mbash.net wrote Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:37: >> Hi Dharma, >> >> This a practical suggestion to do research related to internet user's >> issues, 100% support the approach and i think its a good think to >> be done >> . >> >> i have expressed the same suggestion in Cairo meeting to do a >> research >> using survey to get more input from the summit participants on >> participation issues ( e.g what are the barriers on active >> participation ? >> is there language issues ?, ..ect ), but my suggestion was not >> noted, this >> research could be the outcome of the summit. >> >> every participant should be obligated to complete the surveys before >> attending the summit, a session on the summit could be dedicated to >> present the out-comes of the surveys . >> >> Regards, >> Mo.El Bashir >> >>> >>> Hi Wolf, >>> >>> Evan suggested that I email you with a proposal I would like to make >>> for preparation for the Summit. I initiated a discussion on the >>> NARALO list of what we might be able to do in preparation for the >>> Summit to make our time together in Mexico City more effective. I >>> proposed to NARALO that we do some informal mapping on two issues: >>> Who are Internet Users? and What ICANN issues are internet users >>> most >>> concerned about? I believe that doing some preparation to gain >>> clarity on these two fundamental questions prior to the Summit could >>> help to identify important points of convergence and divergence >>> among >>> ALSs which in turn would help to deepen discussions at the Summit >>> itself. Informally, several NARALO members thought that this would >>> have value as preparation for the Summit and no one spoke against >>> doing it. I am now running it by you to see how you like it as a >>> formal activity which At-Large, or alternatively individual RALOS, >>> could support as preparation for the Summit. The concept is to >>> pinpoint the hot topics that require attention to resolve when we >>> meet >>> in person. >>> >>> >>> How it could work: >>> >>> Myself (and others if interested) would develop a simple survey for >>> ALSs on these two issues.* The survey would identify ALS members >>> sense of what an internet user is in general, as well as the kind of >>> internet user they feel most familiar with and most comfortable >>> representing. In addition, ALS members would be asked to >>> prioritize ICANN issues vis a vis their impact on internet users. >>> This information would be aggregated by region. >>> >>> Myself (and others if interested) would promote the survey among >>> ALSs. >>> >>> Myself (and others if interested) would make a summary of the >>> surveys >>> available a few weeks prior to the Summit via the web, and printable >>> formats. The summaries would not make recommendations or pass >>> judgement, but simply report what was found. >>> >>> Myself (and others if interested) would work with the rest of the >>> Summit group to determine how best to use the findings during the >>> Summit. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Danny Younger said he would do some research on online >>> collaborative >>> issue mapping tools -- these could be used in tandem with a survey >>> or >>> instead of a survey-- depending on how easy the tool is to use. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Dharma Dailey >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Summit-wg mailing list >>> Summit-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/summit-wg_atlarge-lists.ica… >>> >>> Summit WG URL: https://st.icann.org/Summit-wg >>> >>> >> >> >> > > comunica-ch > phone +41 79 204 83 87 > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > www.comunica-ch.net > > Digitale Allemd > http://blog.allmend.ch - > > EURALO > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
by Robert Guerra Nov. 18, 2008

Nov. 18, 2008

Evan, The issue of local user participation ended up being less then optimal due to a couple of reasons. First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were nothere. Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee egyptian govt offcials. When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting righs on content Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play them back at thr meeting. Sigh. In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . Robert On 11/12/08, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.ie> wrote: > > On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:33, Danny Younger wrote: > >> I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter >> to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which >> the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very >> limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and >> (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that >> were available to at-large members. >> >> As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to >> a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote >> participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops. >> >> This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote >> participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > Were there issues with the Cairo meeting? Normally I'd have expected > to see at least one press release per day etc., etc., I was also > interested in following some of the "action" but couldn't see how > > Michele > > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > UK: 0844 484 9361 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Sent from my mobile device

3 2

Additional ALAC Meeting topic
by Danny Younger Nov. 18, 2008

Nov. 18, 2008

Cheryl and members of the ALAC, As you may be aware, the RAA-WG has recently received correspondance from the following individuals: Rodger Flemming, Alfredo Giascopato, Jay Walker, Simon Templar, Matthew Griesinger, Clive Holton, Chris Ramsden, Brian d'Eon, Barry J Bailey, Jerry Jansa, Peter Naus, Bill Blue, Russell Johnson, John D. Knapp, Patty Sneeden, Sean Gardner, Neal Handly, Gary Li, Bob Wright, groundstar, Alan Cartledge, and Dana Longever. All these parties have requested the public disclosure of registrar main office addresses. It would be appropriate for the ALAC to reply to these users detailing what steps it is taking to address their concerns. Is there anything that you can tell this community other than the fact that you held a meeting with registrars in which this topic was discussed? How does the ALAC intend to solve the problem that they have raised?

1 0

Nov.25 ALAC Meeting: Agenda Items
by Danny Younger Nov. 18, 2008

Nov. 18, 2008

Dear Cheryl and members of the ALAC, Almost two years ago, on 30 November 2006, I first brought the issue of user domain renewal problems at RegisterFly to the attention of ICANN's Senior Management -- see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg05232.html As events unfolded that put hundreds of thousands of registrations at risk, we finally heard ICANN's CEO calling for decisive action: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA," he said. "There must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off." Yet as of this moment, we still have no comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process started or even scheduled, nor has action been taken by ICANN management to implement changes to the RAA in a decisive and timely fashion. What is clear to me is that ICANN Staff has (1) failed to do their job with respect to lauching a comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process; and (2) has acted to deceive the Board regarding the available options to amend/revise the RAA. Let me address this latter point first. At the Cairo Board Meeting, the Board was told: "So having developed a set of amendments, then, how do we incorporate these and make them effective into the RAA? The Registrar Accreditation Agreement calls for them to be incorporated through a consensus policy..." This above statement is certainly less than fully honest. In addition to consensus policy procedures, the RAA includes (1) an amendments & waivers clause (5.14), and (2) a Right to Substitute Updated Agreement clause (5.5). Choosing not to invoke the amendments and waivers clause and deciding not to substitute an updated agreement while waiting for a lengthy and time-consuming consensus policy development process to fully run its course is an irresponsible way forward. This is not how an organization takes "decisive action"; this is not how one honors a duty to protect the user interest. Proposal for ALAC action: 1. With regard to the staff failure to launch a comprehensive review of registrar accreditation processes a remedy is available through the Reconsideration process. A Reconsideration Request sent to the Committee of the Board on Reconsideration allows a petitioning entity to cite an "inaction of ICANN for which review or reconsideration is sought". Details are available here: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/ 2. With regard to the RAA, the ALAC should request a formal explanation from ICANN Staff as to why (1) invoking the amendments and waivers clause may not be pursued and (2) why an updated agreement may not be substituted. As both of these options are permitted by contract, we need to know why Staff has chosen not to pursue this viable course of action. Ongoing delays do not serve the user interest. When ICANN takes years and years and years to resolve major issues, the broader community loses confidence in ICANN's ability to manage the process. best regards, Danny Younger

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
by Robert Guerra Nov. 18, 2008

Nov. 18, 2008

I will review latest comments later today as they don't seem tread well on my gmail bbery ap Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved. There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings. Meetings in my opinion should include not only effective advance planning and prep, but also partication of internet users - which includes virtual and in person strategies. For example, alac could include a briefing to internet local internet users - so that the novice icann oberver/user can in 1hr or less learn what at-large has done since the last in person meeting as well as learn how to engage via als's or other structures. Robert On 11/17/08, admin(a)isoc.sd <admin(a)isoc.sd> wrote: > Robert, > > I was interested as an internet user and professional from the region to > join you and others for a dinner to meet Gamal "or Gemy is his nickname, > whom is not the editor in chief of Al Distor Egyptian newspaper, he is the > webmaster", i was interested to hear from him the problems of Egyptian > bloggers and status of internet in Egypt but i did not hear anything > related to that, this evening did not encourage me to participate in the > video show beside another having another commitment at the same time. > > as i have expressed my opinion in an earlier email i don't think the ICANN > meeting is the right fora for such discussions, am against web filtering > and i support freedom of expression, but i guess we might lose track is > the main focus to the internet status in Egypt was political, i have asked > Gemy that night to ask his fellow bloggers to attend ICANN meeting to > participate, learn and engage . > > I hope this incident dose not divert our attention from the main point > which enhancing participation in ICANN meetings . > > Regards, > Mohamed EL Bashir > > > >> >> Robert et.al. Please see my intewrsaced comments to Robert's recent >> posting below... >> >> CLO >> >>> Evan, >> >>> The issue of local user participation ended up being less then >>> optimal due to a couple of reasons. >> >> <CLO> Many in the ICANN Community have agreed and complained about the >> standard of Public and Remote participation at this Cairo meeting... >> The matter of ICANN Meeting participation and our ( ALAC & At-Large's) >> response to this issue will be a matter for discussion at the next >> ALAC Meeting on the 25th >> >>> First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - >>> ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was >>> not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were >>> nothere. >> >> <CLO> Robert it would be so much easier if you Do NOT mix Apples and >> Oranges=> please you are referring to a meeting of public interest >> (Local Bloggers) that was hoping to have a meeting at the ICANN Venue >> so that some of us could interface with them if we so desired... Your >> request for a room for this activity was sent to Nick and I on the >> 30th of October at 2300 hrs AEDST and in it (it is inserted below) you >> indicate sponsorship from other entities to assist you in this >> independent venture (well in as much as you were writing from the POV >> of your role/ capacity as Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom >> House... I do NOT see any outcome of this as a Public Participation in >> ICANN Meetings matter... And the community should note that Nick >> replied within a few hours and and you responded on the 31st that YOU >> had not seen the video in question (see snip below) >> >>> Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a >>> local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive >>> ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee >>> egyptian govt offcials. >> >> <CLO> My statements were in regards to conversation threads that were >> critical of the host country of an ICANN meeting being conducted on >> what I believe was an ICANN related ALAC in Cairo Chat space... that >> was fixed at the time, to at least my satisfaction as Chair of the >> ALAC and is unrelated to public participation and I stand by all of my >> actions. >> >> When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac >> meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was >> screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting >> righs on content >> >> <CLO> Cheryl stated that "to get into the very tight agenda time we >> had for our ALAC meetings within the ICANN meeting the ALAC or at >> least the ExCom would have needed to see the video to even consider >> the logistics and planning at that time" YOU stated you had still not >> seen it... that is ALL that I said regarding video footage being added >> under and any other business in any meeting and you should note that >> this is a procedural meeting matter The Chair has total control of the >> Agenda of an ALAC meeting according to the ROP's and again this is NOT >> a matter of Public Participation in th ICANN Meeting... >> >>> Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair >>> or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance >>> notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed >>> with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly >>> just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. >> >> <CL0> Local users could have entered any publiuc ( open meeting >> space in any part of the ICANN meeting in Cairo and specifically with >> regards to a video veiwing where ALAC people and those interested in >> ICANN could attend at the venue, you were able to organise a room, it >> was mentioned/ advertised on our lists and chats and those who turned >> up turned up +> AGAIN this is NOT a Public Participation in ICANN >> meeting matter. >> >>> That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean >>> that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting >>> in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. >> >>> On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I >>> was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open >>> skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san >>> juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. >>> Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for >>> virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then >>> ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a >>> formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure >>> virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is >>> not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective >>> and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. >> >> <CLO> All valid point and issues of great frustration to many of us >> involved, THESE ARE matters we can discuss as an ALAC and as I said it >> will be on our Agenda d=for the 25th (and your apologies are noted) >> >>> As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public >>> participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing >>> public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US >>> election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play >>> them back at thr meeting. Sigh. >> >> <CLO> I am more than happy to organise a single topic call with the >> ALAC/At-Large and the Public Participation Director to further this >> important discussion (in fact I had started to discuss this with >> Kieren in Cairo on the Saturday) >> >>> In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation >>> and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to >>> control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done >> - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps >> interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the >> board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . >> >> <CLO> I couldn't agree more >> >> Robert >> >> <insert of request email on 30th October> >> (resending - was in my queue, not sure if sent last night) >> >> Nick & Cheryl: >> >> I have been in touch over the last several weeks with Gemy Hood,who >> is the Editor in Chief of El Dostor Daily News www.dostor.org and >> quite actively involved in the Egyptian blogosphere. >> >> Thanks to funds I have been able to raise, Gemy and his colleagues, >> have - in less then a week - been able to develop a short 20 min >> video (arabic with english subtitles) that documents the issues & >> challenges faced by Egyptian Internet users. I would like to propose >> to show at at the ICANN meeting . >> >> .org (PIR) has graciously agreed to contribute 2,000 USD to sponsor a >> small reception / outreach event so that participants of the ICANN >> meeting can get a better understanding of the issues and challenges >> faced by local internet users, and local users can learn about ways of >> more actively participating at ICANN and Internet Governance processes. >> >> >> If At-large is interested in collaborating in the session - then it >> would be great. It would be a wonderful opportunity for us to better >> know our local counterparts .. and encourage them to register as an >> ALAC. We are missing participation from MENA region, and getting one >> or more groups from Cairo to get involved would demonstrate that >> At-Large is able to do outreach at meetings. >> >> >> As for dates - Thursday Nov 6th between 4-5pm works well for Gemy and >> others in the city. The next step, perhaps with both of your help - >> is to book a space at the conference venue, and arrange logistics for >> a reception. As I mentioned below, there is a small amount available >> for hosting the reception. I would be more then open to have some ALAC >> and/or ICANN staff at the start of the session if there's an interest >> to do so >> >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> --- >> >> >> >> R. Guerra >> Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House >> 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 >> Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101 >> Mobile +1 202 569 1800, Fax: +1 202 293 2840 >> Email: guerra(a)freedomhouse.org >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER >> >> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity >> to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged >> and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended >> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the >> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 296-5101 and delete the >> original message. >> >> If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that >> electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this >> message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise >> protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special >> arrangements will be made. >> >> <end Insert snip> >> >> Response from Nick... >> >> On 30-Oct-08, at 8:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> >> Dear Robert: >> >> I?m preparing to leave now so there?s little I can do until tomorrow >> at this point on this. I can say that it is VERY late in the day to >> try and get any space at the conference venue for additional meetings >> ? I will ask about it when I arrive. Is the video available somewhere >> online so it can be seen? >> >> RG reply Fri 31/10/2008 12:51 AM >> >> Nick: >> >> I haven't seen the video yet. Will see it when I arrive tomorrow. >> >> Look forward to seeing you the rest of at-large this weekend. >> >> Robert >> -- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > > > -- Sent from my mobile device

4 4

Proposal to Summit-WG: Mapping Internet Users and ICANN Governance Issues
by Dharma Dailey Nov. 17, 2008

Nov. 17, 2008

Hi Wolf, Evan suggested that I email you with a proposal I would like to make for preparation for the Summit. I initiated a discussion on the NARALO list of what we might be able to do in preparation for the Summit to make our time together in Mexico City more effective. I proposed to NARALO that we do some informal mapping on two issues: Who are Internet Users? and What ICANN issues are internet users most concerned about? I believe that doing some preparation to gain clarity on these two fundamental questions prior to the Summit could help to identify important points of convergence and divergence among ALSs which in turn would help to deepen discussions at the Summit itself. Informally, several NARALO members thought that this would have value as preparation for the Summit and no one spoke against doing it. I am now running it by you to see how you like it as a formal activity which At-Large, or alternatively individual RALOS, could support as preparation for the Summit. The concept is to pinpoint the hot topics that require attention to resolve when we meet in person. How it could work: Myself (and others if interested) would develop a simple survey for ALSs on these two issues.* The survey would identify ALS members sense of what an internet user is in general, as well as the kind of internet user they feel most familiar with and most comfortable representing. In addition, ALS members would be asked to prioritize ICANN issues vis a vis their impact on internet users. This information would be aggregated by region. Myself (and others if interested) would promote the survey among ALSs. Myself (and others if interested) would make a summary of the surveys available a few weeks prior to the Summit via the web, and printable formats. The summaries would not make recommendations or pass judgement, but simply report what was found. Myself (and others if interested) would work with the rest of the Summit group to determine how best to use the findings during the Summit. *Danny Younger said he would do some research on online collaborative issue mapping tools -- these could be used in tandem with a survey or instead of a survey-- depending on how easy the tool is to use. Best Regards, Dharma Dailey

2 1

REMINDER: NARALO Monthly Teleconference Today
by At-Large Staff Nov. 17, 2008

Nov. 17, 2008

Dear NARALO Members: We wish to remind you that your monthly teleconference is scheduled for today at 1000 UTC. Complete information may be found at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?17_november_2008 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

5 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Letter to the Board
by cheryl＠hovtek.com.au Nov. 17, 2008

Nov. 17, 2008

Robert et.al. Please see my intewrsaced comments to Robert's recent posting below... CLO > Evan, > The issue of local user participation ended up being less then > optimal due to a couple of reasons. <CLO> Many in the ICANN Community have agreed and complained about the standard of Public and Remote participation at this Cairo meeting... The matter of ICANN Meeting participation and our ( ALAC & At-Large's) response to this issue will be a matter for discussion at the next ALAC Meeting on the 25th > First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - > ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was > not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were > nothere. <CLO> Robert it would be so much easier if you Do NOT mix Apples and Oranges=> please you are referring to a meeting of public interest (Local Bloggers) that was hoping to have a meeting at the ICANN Venue so that some of us could interface with them if we so desired... Your request for a room for this activity was sent to Nick and I on the 30th of October at 2300 hrs AEDST and in it (it is inserted below) you indicate sponsorship from other entities to assist you in this independent venture (well in as much as you were writing from the POV of your role/ capacity as Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House... I do NOT see any outcome of this as a Public Participation in ICANN Meetings matter... And the community should note that Nick replied within a few hours and and you responded on the 31st that YOU had not seen the video in question (see snip below) > Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a > local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive > ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee > egyptian govt offcials. <CLO> My statements were in regards to conversation threads that were critical of the host country of an ICANN meeting being conducted on what I believe was an ICANN related ALAC in Cairo Chat space... that was fixed at the time, to at least my satisfaction as Chair of the ALAC and is unrelated to public participation and I stand by all of my actions. When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting righs on content <CLO> Cheryl stated that "to get into the very tight agenda time we had for our ALAC meetings within the ICANN meeting the ALAC or at least the ExCom would have needed to see the video to even consider the logistics and planning at that time" YOU stated you had still not seen it... that is ALL that I said regarding video footage being added under and any other business in any meeting and you should note that this is a procedural meeting matter The Chair has total control of the Agenda of an ALAC meeting according to the ROP's and again this is NOT a matter of Public Participation in th ICANN Meeting... > Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair > or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance > notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed > with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly > just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. <CL0> Local users could have entered any publiuc ( open meeting space in any part of the ICANN meeting in Cairo and specifically with regards to a video veiwing where ALAC people and those interested in ICANN could attend at the venue, you were able to organise a room, it was mentioned/ advertised on our lists and chats and those who turned up turned up +> AGAIN this is NOT a Public Participation in ICANN meeting matter. > That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean > that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting > in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. > On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I > was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open > skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san > juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. > Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for > virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then > ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a > formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure > virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is > not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective > and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. <CLO> All valid point and issues of great frustration to many of us involved, THESE ARE matters we can discuss as an ALAC and as I said it will be on our Agenda d=for the 25th (and your apologies are noted) > As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public > participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing > public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US > election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play > them back at thr meeting. Sigh. <CLO> I am more than happy to organise a single topic call with the ALAC/At-Large and the Public Participation Director to further this important discussion (in fact I had started to discuss this with Kieren in Cairo on the Saturday) > In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation > and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to > control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . <CLO> I couldn't agree more Robert <insert of request email on 30th October> (resending - was in my queue, not sure if sent last night) Nick & Cheryl: I have been in touch over the last several weeks with Gemy Hood,who is the Editor in Chief of El Dostor Daily News www.dostor.org and quite actively involved in the Egyptian blogosphere. Thanks to funds I have been able to raise, Gemy and his colleagues, have - in less then a week - been able to develop a short 20 min video (arabic with english subtitles) that documents the issues & challenges faced by Egyptian Internet users. I would like to propose to show at at the ICANN meeting . .org (PIR) has graciously agreed to contribute 2,000 USD to sponsor a small reception / outreach event so that participants of the ICANN meeting can get a better understanding of the issues and challenges faced by local internet users, and local users can learn about ways of more actively participating at ICANN and Internet Governance processes. If At-large is interested in collaborating in the session - then it would be great. It would be a wonderful opportunity for us to better know our local counterparts .. and encourage them to register as an ALAC. We are missing participation from MENA region, and getting one or more groups from Cairo to get involved would demonstrate that At-Large is able to do outreach at meetings. As for dates - Thursday Nov 6th between 4-5pm works well for Gemy and others in the city. The next step, perhaps with both of your help - is to book a space at the conference venue, and arrange logistics for a reception. As I mentioned below, there is a small amount available for hosting the reception. I would be more then open to have some ALAC and/or ICANN staff at the start of the session if there's an interest to do so regards Robert --- R. Guerra Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101 Mobile +1 202 569 1800, Fax: +1 202 293 2840 Email: guerra(a)freedomhouse.org CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 296-5101 and delete the original message. If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special arrangements will be made. <end Insert snip> Response from Nick... On 30-Oct-08, at 8:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: Dear Robert: I?m preparing to leave now so there?s little I can do until tomorrow at this point on this. I can say that it is VERY late in the day to try and get any space at the conference venue for additional meetings ? I will ask about it when I arrive. Is the video available somewhere online so it can be seen? RG reply Fri 31/10/2008 12:51 AM Nick: I haven't seen the video yet. Will see it when I arrive tomorrow. Look forward to seeing you the rest of at-large this weekend. Robert --

1 0

Letter to the Board
by Danny Younger Nov. 12, 2008

Nov. 12, 2008

I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members. As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops. This has to be the worst case of both in-person and remote participation management that I have ever seen at an ICANN session.

5 5