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

[ALAC-Announce] MP3 recording New gTLD Q&A teleconferencge 8 December 2008
by Danny Younger Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

Incorrect link was posted -- should be: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-qa-20081208.mp3

1 0

Today's ALAC Meeting
by Danny Younger Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

Comments inserted: 1. Two of the North American elected reps were not in attendance (Beau and Robert). Beau sent through his apologies in advance of the meeting. <CLO> I trust they will still also post any reports or comments thay may have as that is after all the advantage of using a Wiki. <DANNY> Having both elected NA reps miss the monthly teleconference does not serve the needs of the NARALO. The ALAC has minimum participation requirements that are not being met and the ALAC Chair is not acting responsibly by shirking her obligation to deal with this ongoing problem. 2. Having neither seen apologies from Robert nor his monthly SSAC liaison report (as far as I know the last one he submitted was in May), the NARALO needs to decide on an appropriate course of action. <CLO> I did try to meet up with Robert when I spotted him at the IGF meeting Evan has full details on this as we have been working together on several matters including increased particpation in the ALAC of the NARALO <DANNY> We've heard this song and dance before. If a volunteer is no longer willing to do the work involved, then that volunteer should be asked to step down. The ALAC Chair has the right to ask for a resignation or to recommend a recall. Constant inaction is not the appropriate solution. 3. The ALAC heard from Pierre Dandjinou and Marilyn Cade of the PSC. <CLO> this excelent discussion which should assist the ALS's and RALO's further their thought and comments on the Vital subject will be copied from the recordong and be made available for your use in the three languages... Please take time to listed to this (and in fact the trascript of the meeting if you are confused by what is stated here between Danny and I) <DANNY> As these impromptu meetings always eat up valuable time in the ALAC's all-too brief meeting, perhaps the Chair in the future will organize separate teleconferences when these other groups wish to address the ALAC. 4. Staff failed to organize a briefing session on the RAA amendments as requested. <CLO> Note At-Large Staff have repeatedly tried tp organise it is OTHER ICANN Staff that has not managed... <DANNY> Staff is Staff, and we are getting screwed by ICANN Staff. If the registrars or registries wanted an urgent briefing on any topic, you can bet your last dollar that they would get their briefing and in a timely manner. 5. No NCUC nor ccTLD liaison report was provided. <CLO> No Meeting pf the ccNSO had been held since our last meeting. Not sure on NCUC Beau can answer this... <DANNY> The ccNSO posted their formal CAIRO minutes -- see http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-call-05nov08.pdf and Milton in the NCUC has been engaged in slamming the alternative Stakeholder Charter produced by Cheryl Preston. 6. No RALO reports were provided. <CLO> these need to be posted after their Dec meeting(s) most have not held one since the last ALAC Meeting and (EURALO was ealrier today I beleive) AND it was only then for Nov Meeting that this option was included in the Agenda <DANNY> I look forward to seeing the reports posted 7. No Working Group reports were provided <CLO> these need to be posted after their Dec meeting(s) most have not held one since the last ALAC Meeting and (EURALO was ealrier today I beleive) AND it was only AFTER the Nov Meeting that this option was included in the Agenda based on your request <DANNY> The Working Groups are a joke. But it should be fun watching the WG Chairs describe just how much "nothing" has been accomplished. 8. No ad-hoc committee reports were provided <CLO> these need to be posted after their Dec meeting(s) most have not held one since the last ALAC Meeting and (EURALO was ealrier today I beleive) AND it was only AFTER the Nov Meeting that this option was included in the Agenda based on your request <DANNY> The ad-hoc committees haven't met, haven't set up mailing lists, haven't reached out to the community -- business as usual. 9. No issues were raised for the ICANN Board meeting <CLO> the Public Participation was and there was specific instruction to what was to be said re new GNSO structure <DANNY> Of course, real user issues weren't on the agenda for discussion. All the folk that wrote into the RAA WG are getting no response from the ALAC and their concerns are not being brought to the board's attention. No one has bothered to comment on the new spate of domain name hijackings or on the domain name warehousing issues 10. The process for putting items on the ALAC agenda was not discussed <CLO> ExCom will be drafting some options <DANNY> Yet another layer in the byzantine mess associated with ALAC. 11. As no ALAC members are willing to discuss whether the proposed RAA amendment package should be approved by the GNSO, <CLO> We have had discussion before including last meeting and at Cairo which included the RALO reps... Time was limited and the issue was listed for Decision Not discussion any way... <DANNY> Three minutes at the last meeting is not a sufficient discussion. Taking decisions before a topic is properly vetted is foolhardy. the topic will be put up as a poll to ALAC members (who can click on a choice without having to otherwise express their views). Alan Greenberg continued to press forward with his opinion that the RAA amendements package (unacceptable to most of us as a whole) should be accepted as a complete package. <CLO> your NARALO views can be reflected in the votes of your Reps I would have thought... That is the machanism is it not? <DANNY> Gosh, that probably depends on (1) whether our reps will even participate and (2) whether they will respect the view of the NARALO and (3) whether the NonCom rep is bound by NARALO decisions (he isn't). 12. The other topics on the agenda that could not be discussed will in similar fashion be taken to a polling process and once again we will not hear any ALAC member discussion of these topics nor will we likely see any on-line discussion. <CLO> those listed for decision come to the vote Discussion shou;d come earlier And we have to deal with limited time in meetings LOTS of close deadlines and the idea with the PSC discussion which I assume you felt was valid is to help prep the ALS's and RALO's do *their* policy development / comment work which is wher we all need to get to is it not? <DANNY> In other communities, items aren't put up for decision just days before a scheduled meeting. Other communities inform their memberships of the items going up for decision well in advance of a vote. With your insane process no one ever knows what's going on until the last possible minute, and there is no real opportunity for RALO or ALS feedback. 13. Vanda Scartezini was nominated to serve on the GNSO's Operational Steering Committee (OSC) Working Group <CLO> please also note the advance notice to RALO's and ALS's that the ensuing WG's from this will require their involvement and it is there that the real work gets done 14. The ALAC continues to pretend that there is a process in place for receipt of local and regional comments on new gTLDs, and will collect these non-existent ALS comments and will produce yet another Statement reflecting the views of one or two people by the end of the extended comment period. <CLO> RALO's are the main aggregation point they are made up of the ALS's RALO's are the primary pont these comments are relevent to... Summit is a facilitation tool in all this any chance you might allow us to see what happens after that? <DANNY> Sure. In the meantime please feel free to draft more Statements that aren't based on any public feedback. 15. Once again the ALAC was barely quorate with almost half of their members not attending the meeting. <CLO> regretable but we were quorate that is what matters obviously I'd prefer a full house... Going to poll fpr the decisions by the way allows for higher participation does it not... <DANNY> Wonderful... just have your members check off the boxes without any discussion whatsoever... and keep us updated when a user issue actually sneaks through by accident on your ALAC list. 16. The newly ratified ALAC Executive Committee put forward no report. <CLO> like the letter to the Board that is on my dead laptop it will be posted... 17. The ALAC Letter to the Board on Public Participation was finally posted today. Of course, it failed to include a request to hear from the newly established Board Committee on Public Participation. <CLO> actually thanks for that observation!!!! it was in the original => I missed that in the re write It will be fixed in a few hours as it is now 0255 and my work day starts at 0530 I intend to put my feet up. CLO

2 1

Knujon ALS application attached
by Danny Younger Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

see attached document

1 0

Today's ALAC Meeting
by Danny Younger Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

1. Two of the North American elected reps were not in attendance (Beau and Robert). Beau sent through his apologies in advance of the meeting. 2. Having neither seen apologies from Robert nor his monthly SSAC liaison report (as far as I know the last one he submitted was in May), the NARALO needs to decide on an appropriate course of action. 3. The ALAC heard from Pierre Dandjinou and Marilyn Cade of the PSC. 4. Staff failed to organize a briefing session on the RAA amendments as requested. 5. No NCUC nor ccTLD liaison report was provided. 6. No RALO reports were provided. 7. No Working Group reports were provided 8. No ad-hoc committee reports were provided 9. No issues were raised for the ICANN Board meeting 10. The process for putting items on the ALAC agenda was not discussed 11. As no ALAC members are willing to discuss whether the proposed RAA amendment package should be approved by the GNSO, the topic will be put up as a poll to ALAC members (who can click on a choice without having to otherwise express their views). Alan Greenberg continued to press forward with his opinion that the RAA amendements package (unacceptable to most of us as a whole) should be accepted as a complete package. 12. The other topics on the agenda that could not be discussed will in similar fashion be taken to a polling process and once again we will not hear any ALAC member discussion of these topics nor will we likely see any on-line discussion. 13. Vanda Scartezini was nominated to serve on the GNSO's Operational Steering Committee (OSC) Working Group 14. The ALAC continues to pretend that there is a process in place for receipt of local and regional comments on new gTLDs, and will collect these non-existent ALS comments and will produce yet another Statement reflecting the views of one or two people by the end of the extended comment period. 15. Once again the ALAC was barely quorate with almost half of their members not attending the meeting. 16. The newly ratified ALAC Executive Committee put forward no report. 17. The ALAC Letter to the Board on Public Participation was finally posted today. Of course, it failed to include a request to hear from the newly established Board Committee on Public Participation.

4 3

FW: MP3 recording New gTLD Q&A teleconference 8 December 2008
by Jacqueline A. Morris Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

FYI Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: owner-policy(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-policy@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:56 PM To: Policy Staff Subject: [policy] MP3 recording New gTLD Q&A teleconferencge 8 December 2008 Please find the MP3 recording of the New gTLD Q&A teleconference, held on 8 December, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-qa-2008122608.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec A transcript as well will be posted within the next few days. Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Users and the New gTLDs
by Danny Younger Dec. 5, 2008

Dec. 5, 2008

With regard to new gTLDs document, at the ICANN Cairo session the Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) put foward this comment: "We have divvied it up totally to yet another ad-hoc Working Group. So everyone has a section and we are at a point of not doing a line-by-line analysis as a whole but in a subset analysis. But our Advisory Committee meets monthly as do each of the regional at-large organizations meet monthly. It's now main point on their agenda. So by December, we should be having meaningful responses that have actually gone out to community consultation and coming back in." How nice if this were actually true. 1. If these representatives of the user community have actually formed an ad-hoc working group, then where are their discussions being held? The rest of us "users" would sure like to know. These user reps haven't communicated on the ALAC's gTLD-WG list (which hasn't seen a single comment since 8 September), and they certainly haven't advised anyone of the formation of a new list that would allow for a subset or a line-by-line analysis by community members. 2. Neither has there been any discussion on the lists of the Regional at-large organizations on this topic thus far -- that's a very far cry from being "the main point on their agenda". 3. So we are now into December and no subset analysis has been put out for community consultation -- of course, there is no consequent grassroots feedback coming back in. OK... so what will likely happen next? Here's the probable scenario: ICANN Staff will prevail upon a few members of ALAC to come up with some kind of Statement. One person will wind up doing all the work while the other conscripts will contribute next to nothing to the discussion. One person's Statement will be posted just prior to the commencement of the next ALAC meeting, and the Committee members (most of whom will likely not have even read the Statement) will exclaim "Great Work!" and vote to ratify the language therein. This is not what any of us expected the ALAC/RALO/ALS process to be. It was not meant to be a "think tank" in which just a few select individuals speak out through "Statements" on behalf of the worldwide user community; instead the ALAC was meant to be a coordination point that facilitated an upward flow of input from grassroots communities on issues within ICANN's remit that were of concern to individual Internet users. So, because the ALAC, again, is not doing its job and is not making any real effort to involve the user community, I am asking for those in the at-large world (the public) to take a moment to really think hard about ICANN's new gTLD processes and the potential impact of those processes. Here are some of my own preliminary thoughts: A. On the topic of pricing and non-discriminatory treatment -- When the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) considered the question as to whether the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25 (which relates to cost recovery through user charges by federal government agencies), was applicable to a nongovernmental entity such as ICANN, it determined that whereas ICANN is a project partner under the Memorandum of Understanding, ICANN is not subject to the Circular but necessarily is subject to the Department’s policy to allow project partners only to recover actual project costs -- see http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/og00033r.pdf Accordingly we have seen ICANN putting forward as a justification for their high new gTLD evaluation fees the notion of a "cost-recovery principle" which while in keeping with the above-mentioned DOC policy still raises the following set of questions: 1. For the last ten years ICANN has chosen not to utilize the principle of cost-recovery as it pertained to the IANA costs incurred on behalf of the ccTLD community (although it had the option under contract to charge fees for such service): "After the effective date of this purchase order, ICANN may establish and collect fees from third parties (i.e. other than the United States Government) for the functions performed under this purchase order, provided the fee levels are approved by the Contracting Officer before going into effect, which approval shall not be withheld unreasonably provided the fee levels are fair and equitable and provided the aggregate fees charged during the term of this purchase order do not exceed the cost of providing the functions." http://www.icann.org/en/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm Is it discriminatory to invoke this cost-recovery principle against one set of TLD operators (the gTLDs) while not invoking it when dealing with a different set of TLD operators (the ccTLDs)? I, for one, see it as grossly inequitable. 2. If the cost-recovery principle is to be used for gTLDs, can we expect it similarly to be used to deal with IDN ccTLDs? Is ICANN planning to charge the ccTLD world for ten years worth of IDN development costs and other ancillary policy development costs as it now seeks to charge the new gTLD operators? If so, we will be taking a giant step backwards by creating an unnecessary barrier to entry for many in the developing world -- and this will seriously hurt that user community. This viewpoint is consistent with the recent position taken by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in their Cairo Communique that stated: "the charging of fees for the IDN ccTLD fast track process should be examined further to ensure that it does not constitute an additional difficulty for participation in this process." Policies need to be applied on a uniform basis. If we have chosen not to abide by a project cost-recovery principle thus far in ICANN's ten-year history, now is not the time to rock the boat without widespread community agreement to this radical shift in policy. B. On the topic of pricing and its consequent impact on users -- Are you aware that ICANN runs its own registry operation? This registry (.INT) is managed by ICANN's IANA personnel and incurred no "evaluation costs" nor any other costs for that matter. It offers a registration service to a certain very small class of registrants (IGOs). This is a fine example of how the DNS is supposed to be managed -- small groups with defined needs are accommodated without the incumbrance of major costs. But what does ICANN have to say on the topic of fee reductions for the needy? "No practical method of ICANN financial assistance or fee reductions was identified for the first round of new gTLD applications, though an appropriate mechanism might be defined for subsequent rounds. If staff is able to identify sources for potential grants, financial assistance or match-making opportunities for applicants from qualified developing nations, and indigenous and minority peoples in need, the results will be made publicly available." While ICANN Staff somehow couldn't identify a solution (and I'll bet they tried really hard), there is indeed an obvious solution for these needy applicants that ICANN has overlooked -- the IANA can establish and manage other comparable sets of registry operations (akin to .INT) so that groups other than IGOs may benefit from a low-to-no-cost option (the registry and the registrar are the same organizational entity). But this is a policy choice that ICANN has chosen not to pursue as it is so much easier for ICANN to focus on an unprecedented and unwarranted naked money grab. As I see it, ICANN views it as much more important to squeeze as many dollars as it can from the commercial world while placing the needs of the non-commercial and the developing world on the back burner. What we have here is an organization totally consumed by the notion of launching its .brand initiative to the detriment of all other parties just so that its revenues will eventually rise to the level of the ITU revenue stream. And as we all know, the commercial world isn't too happy about this either... (just read the public comments already posted by firms such as Chevron and brands such as Lego). A closing thought: Users shouldn't have to stand in the wings awaiting an opportunity for affordable new gTLD registries when the mechanisms to afford them a namespace are in ICANN's own hands. Let's have ICANN (through the IANA) put forward a proposal to manage the namespaces of the needy in much the same manner as it now manages the .int domain. If the ITU can take the time to craft new recommendations for the management of .int registrations -- see http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG02-051206-TD-GEN-0106/e -- then certainly ICANN can put its nose to the grindstone in pursuit of the noble. It's time for ICANN to do something positive for indigenous peoples, to protect endangered languages and the needs of the developing world, to give a damn about the users whose needs go far beyond a .brand namespace. If you value the concept of namespace for the users, this is your chance to write in and let ICANN know how you feel.

2 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Anyone from NARALO going to IGF in Hydrabad?
by WWWhatsup Dec. 3, 2008

Dec. 3, 2008

I would soften the blow by adding "As yet," joly At 10:28 AM 12/1/2008, Danny Younger wrote: >I'd like to add that the ALAC continues to be a miserable failure of little to no value to the broader user community. I look forward to these views being presented at the IGF. > > >--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > >> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > >> I'd like to recommend the message "ICANN has failed >> at engaging Internet >> users or adequately considering their interests thus >> far." >> >> --Wendy >> >> Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> > >> > ALAC Chair Cheryl is looking for a NARALO perspective >> for a workshop >> > she's presenting at the upcoming IGF meeting in >> Hydrabad. The subject >> > of the workshop is "Lessons Learned from the >> Engagement and >> > Facilitation of Internet Users into Policy Development >> and Processes >> > within ICANN via the ICANN Board's At-Large >> Advisory Committee (ALAC)". >> > >> > If someone from our midst is going, you might want to >> say a few word >> > at that workshop. Or of anyone has any comments that >> they'd like to >> > relay to Cheryl on the issue, please do. >> > >> > - Evan >> > >> Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com

1 0

Next NARALO Teleconference: 08 December 1900 UTC
by At-Large Staff Dec. 3, 2008

Dec. 3, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you that the next NARALO Teleconference will be on Monday, 8 December at 1900 UTC. An tentative agenda will shortly be posted to the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?08_december_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Anyone from NARALO going to IGF in Hydrabad?
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 1, 2008

Dec. 1, 2008

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ALAC Chair Cheryl is looking for a NARALO perspective for a workshop she's presenting at the upcoming IGF meeting in Hydrabad. The subject of the workshop is "Lessons Learned from the Engagement and Facilitation of Internet Users into Policy Development and Processes within ICANN via the ICANN Board's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)". If someone from our midst is going, you might want to say a few word at that workshop. Or of anyone has any comments that they'd like to relay to Cheryl on the issue, please do. - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJM/30B6WWYxnsgmwRAmy/AKCnC2kwsB83NNfIJE979vcQ++dwFwCfda31 3C7wQoQ6oZ5LHiBFaevRn+Y= =FPx2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3