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

Serious Allegations
by Danny Younger Nov. 26, 2008

Nov. 26, 2008

interesting read... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment027.pdf

2 1

NARALO Funded Project Proposal
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

Dear Evan and members of the NARALO, I ask that this project be discussed at the next monthly NARALO meeting. Title: At-Large Service Award Proposal Source of request: This request is being made by the North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) pursuant to the “Procedure for Expenditure of Funds for At-Large Community Activities”. This request was ratified at the NARALO monthly meeting on [INSERT DATE]. Project Description: An annual award providing recognition and support for those progressing user issues through the ICANN process – the “At-Large Service Award”, administered by the NARALO, will recognize and commemorate extraordinary dedication to Internet user issues. The award will run for three years, presented annually to an individual who has made outstanding contributions in service to the at-large community. The award includes a ceremonial gift, a US$3,000 honorarium, and a travel grant to the ICANN Annual Meeting. The Award will honor an individual who has provided sustained contributions, service to the community, and leadership. With respect to leadership, the selection committee will place particular emphasis on candidates who have supported and enabled others in addition to their own specific actions. Beginning and end dates of the project: The project will commence on 1 January 2009 and will continue until the ICANN Annual Meeting three years hence. Participants in the Project: All individuals and organizations that participate in NARALO discussions will be eligible to serve on this project as members of the Selection Committee. Neither project participants, nor members of their respective organizations are eligible to receive the At-Large Service Award. Objective of the Project: The project seeks to promote advancement of user issues within the ICANN processes by recognition of those that have demonstrated leadership and enablement skills. Project Plan: The Selection Committee will produce a Call for Nominations by the end of the first calendar quarter. Nominations will be received during the second calendar quarter. The selection process will commence thereafter with a decision being reached by consensus by the end of the third calendar quarter. The award recipient will be notified immediately upon the conclusion of the selection process. Press releases will be issued. An awards ceremony will be conducted at the ICANN Annual Meeting. Project Budget: Detail as regards the costs associated with each phase of the project: • the cost of maintaining an e-mail list for planning purposes • the cost for 3 monthly teleconferences during each third calendar quarter • the cost of three annual ceremonial awards • three US$3,000 honorariums (one per annum) • Travel costs to ICANN Annual meetings for the annual award recipients The dates by which any individual payments must be made: • Teleconference charges during the third calendar quarter • Award recipient travel costs in advance of the ICANN Annual Meeting • Honorarium payable at the ICANN Annual meeting The contact information of all those who are to receive funds as a part of the project: • Contact information will be provided after the annual recipient is selected. The costs associated with meeting space: • One Room: Theatre UNGA Style – Dais 6 PAX for 25 attendee ceremony

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Liaisons 2009 election results
by At-Large Staff Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

Beau: Please find the results of the liaison vote below. ------ Forwarded Message From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:51:44 -0800 To: <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Liaisons 2009 election results Dear Community: With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent election to appoint the ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO, the SSAC and the dotMOBI advisory board, we can confirm that the vote is quorate. The results are as follows: 1. Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO from the end of the Annual General Meeting 2008 until the Annual General Meeting 2009? As at poll close: Fri 14 Nov 2008 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes 1 Rudi Vasnick 6 42.86 % 2 Adam Peake 5 35.71 % 3 Abstain 3 21.43 % 2. Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the Security and Stabilty Advisory Committee from the end of the Annual General Meeting 2008 until the Annual General Meeting 2009? As at poll close: Fri 14 Nov 2008 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes 1 Robert Guerra 8 57.14 % 2 Patrick Vande Walle 6 42.86 % 3 Abstain 0 0.0% 3. Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the dotMOBI Advisory Board from the end of the Annual General Meeting 2008 until the Annual General Meeting 2009? As at poll close: Fri 14 Nov 2008 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes 1 Andres Piazza 9 64.29% 2 John Levine 4 28.57% 3 Abstain 1 7.14% The results of the balloting may be independently verified at: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=ds5WPZVq4YyRtHQJid8a We can further confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: 1 Beau Brendler The following liaisons have already been confirmed by the ALAC as they stood unopposed for their respective positions: Alan Greenberg (GNSO) Beau Brendler (NCUC) Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (IDN Policy) We congratulate all the elected liaisons and thank all the candidates for their readiness to serve in this capacity! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists. icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

FW: Now Available: Symantec Report on the Underground Economy
by Thompson, Darlene Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

1 0

Today's ALAC meeting
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

1. Robert Guerra was again not in attendance, nor did he submit the SSAC liaison report (again). In my view, a recall of this representative (who doesn't even show up for NARALO meetings either) is now warranted. 2. The ALAC decided to create yet another structural layer on top of all the other byzantine structural layers that they have imposed on the user community. They have formalized the existence of the Executive Committee (that's the group that has been in charge of the horrible agenda process we have had for the last year) and has given them the power to act on behalf of the ALAC in urgent situations. My thanks to Beau Brendler for voting against this proposal (introduced by Alan Greenberg) that saw no regional or local discussion before it was introduced for a vote. 3. No issues raised by the user community were discussed, neither were any such issues placed on the agenda by the Executive Committee. 4. As usual, a whole bunch of liaison reports were not submitted. 5. No RALO reports were submitted 6. No WG reports were presented 7. No Cairo recap was offered 8. The Letter to the Board on participation issues has not been finalized 9. No issues were raised to be brought to the attention of the Board 10. No ad-hoc committee reports were presented 11. A decision was reached in the last few minutes of the session to hold a special briefing on the RAA amendments within the next three weeks. 12. No response was provided to the many users that wrote into the RAA-WG with their concerns. Another typical ALAC session with the bulk of the time devoted to internal navel-gazing.

2 1

Call for Nominations, Online Safety and Technology Working Group
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is seeking nominations of individuals to represent the business community, public interest groups, and other appropriate groups interested in serving on the NTIA Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) for a single fifteen (15) month term to commence in January 2009. At the conclusion of the working group’s term, the OSTWG will provide a report to the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator and to Congress on ways to promote and to preserve a safe environment for children using the Internet. Members will not receive compensation or reimbursement for travel or for per diem expenses. A meeting schedule will be announced upon formation of the working group. All members selected must agree to attend the scheduled meetings and provide input on the working group’s report. NTIA will provide administrative support for the working group. Further details are available here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2008/FR_OnlineSafety_081121.pdf

1 0

[Fwd: Re: ALAC Agenda]
by Wendy Seltzer Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:51:53 -0500 From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com CC: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> References: <368660.49049.qm(a)web52208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> 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. I disagree, speaking as one registrant. A registrant should have the option never to have his/her personal information recorded. If that means risking losing the name because the information is not escrowed, that risk option should be the registrant's choice, not ICANN's. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

2 2

ALAC Agenda
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

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.icann.org/2… http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2…

4 12

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

Nov. 24, 2008

Thanks Alan, This is a very helpful pointer. --- 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 > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 6:40 PM > I have already tried to shed light on what happened at that > session (but note there was NO decision - just a > presentation by Kurt Pritz followed by a discussion). Please > see my (now) previous e-mails and also the wiki for > tomorrow's ALAC meeting. > > But you don't have to take my word for it. There *IS* a > recording of that meeting. It is pointed to in the GNSO > master calendar in the standard way, but for your > convenience, it is at > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/20081106-GNSO-wrap-up.mp3. Note > that the volume is pretty low and there are a few seconds of > silence before Kurt starts, but it is completely > intelligible. > > Alan > > At 24/11/2008 06:28 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Alan, > > > > Recently we have seen two different approaches > utilized within the GNSO: > > > > 1). on some policy initiatives (such as the tranfers > issues) we have seen policy recommendations emerge as > discrete units -- the topic is broken down into sections, > each with its own WG, and policy recommendations emerge on a > one-by-one basis. > > > > 2). on other policy matters (example: the > contractual conditions PDP) we see the GNSO dealing with > recommendations as a package (with an up-or-down vote on the > entirety of the recommendations instead of one by one). > > > > As neither the transcript nor the recording of the > GNSO wrap-up session is Cairo is available that dealt with > the RAA topic, I have no way of knowing in what manner the > GNSO resolved to move forward on the issue. > > > > Can you shed any light on this? > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Danny Younger > <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Danny Younger > <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > To: "Robert Guerra" > <lists(a)privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" > <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, "Alan Greenberg" > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 5:50 PM > > > Given those three choices, I support > "B" as long > > > as the process fully accords with the contract > definition of > > > that which consitutes a "Consensus > Policy": > > > > > > 4.3.1 "Consensus Policies" are those > > > specifications or policies established based on a > consensus > > > among Internet stakeholders represented in the > ICANN > > > process, as demonstrated by (a) action of the > ICANN Board of > > > Directors establishing the specification or > policy, (b) a > > > recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds > vote of the > > > council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to > which the > > > matter is delegated, that the specification or > policy should > > > be established, and (c) a written report and > supporting > > > materials (which must include all substantive > submissions to > > > the Supporting Organization relating to the > proposal) that > > > (i) documents the extent of agreement and > disagreement among > > > impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach > process used to > > > seek to achieve adequate representation of the > views of > > > groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) > documents > > > the nature and intensity of reasoned support and > opposition > > > to the proposed policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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, 4:35 PM > > > > Danny, there is a discussion going on in > parallel on > > > the > > > > meaning of what Kurt told the Board and the > GNSO. > > > > > > > > For the moment, I am asking a hypothetical > question: > > > If you > > > > have to choose between three options, which > of these > > > do you > > > > select? > > > > > > > > A. ICANN adopts (through some relatively > expedient > > > means, > > > > but not a full PDP) the current list of RAA > amendments > > > (with > > > > whatever flaws it may have), and then starts > a policy > > > > development process (with whatever outcome > it may > > > bring) on > > > > further amendments. > > > > B. We start a policy development process > (with > > > whatever > > > > outcome it may bring). > > > > C. Do absolutely nothing at this point. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > At 24/11/2008 03:44 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > > ------ > > > > > >

1 0

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

Nov. 24, 2008

Given those three choices, I support "B" as long as the process fully accords with the contract definition of that which consitutes a "Consensus Policy": 4.3.1 "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (a) action of the ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (b) a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be established, and (c) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy. --- 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, 4:35 PM > Danny, there is a discussion going on in parallel on the > meaning of what Kurt told the Board and the GNSO. > > For the moment, I am asking a hypothetical question: If you > have to choose between three options, which of these do you > select? > > A. ICANN adopts (through some relatively expedient means, > but not a full PDP) the current list of RAA amendments (with > whatever flaws it may have), and then starts a policy > development process (with whatever outcome it may bring) on > further amendments. > B. We start a policy development process (with whatever > outcome it may bring). > C. Do absolutely nothing at this point. > > Alan > > > At 24/11/2008 03:44 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > 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 3