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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Important: Resigning from ALAC Position at ICANN
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 28, 2008

April 28, 2008

Dear Veronica: On behalf of the staff may I say that we are sorry to see you leave though we can understand that volunteer activities must take a back seat to your other obligations. It has been a pleasure to work with you, and we hope you will remain connected to the community going forward. We wish you the very best! On 28/04/2008 11:55, "Veronica Cretu" <VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu> wrote: Dear colleagues! Warm greetings from Moldova! Hope my message finds you well! I am currently involved as an international expert in a big project for the Ministry of Education of Liberia and will have to spend more than three weeks there starting from May 15. The NGO I run here in Moldova is also involved in many national projects which require very much of my direct involvement: monitoring and evaluation. In this context, it is quite a challenge to find additional time for ALAC activities when I am full-time involved in so many activities. That is why, it is my duty to inform you all that due to the many projects I am currently in charge of, I have to unfortunately resign from my ALAC position. It has not been an easy decision to make at all! I just can not stay in ALAC any longer just for the sake of being on ALAC/AtLarge - I prefer to be effective and to produce impact. And this is smth for which I simply don't have time now! I must say that ALAC has been a great experience for me and I am truly thankful to everyone on ALAC who have been day by day, side by side during this last year. I have learned a lot from this professional, hard-working, committed and culturally diverse community. * I want to thank my European colleagues: Annette and Wolfgang Kleinwächter in the first place, for their confidence in me and for believing that I can bring something new to ALAC, even if I am from Eastern Europe:)! * I am very thankful to Cheryl and Izumi for their openness and for their professional support on the initiatives I launched on ALAC. * I am happy for having worked with my European colleagues: Sebastian and Wolf and all my respect for all EURALO board members for the patience, passion and possible solutions they have been trying to identify in order to make EURALO start working on policy related issues in the region; * My thanks go also for my North American colleagues: Alan, Robert and Beau - for their professional work and support whenever needed; * Jose Ovidio, Carlos, Hawa - my admiration for the effort and time you invest in ALAC - I know it has not been easy for you given the language barriers that you have been facing so far; * Mohamed, Fatimata, Vanda and Thu Hue - many thanks for your energy, time and devotion and for your friendly support on the ideas I was promoting on ALAC/Atlarge. * Many thanks to current ALAC liaisons: Hong, Jacqueline and Wendy; * And of course, my many thanks to Nick - I know it is not an easy task to handle the communication and collaboration with such a big and diverse community. Thank you for your support throughout this year. I know ICANN staff will do much more in order to support ALAC/AtLarge become a viable and strong community now with more staff members in place. I am glad I managed to bring to ALAC/AtLarge some ideas and practices that go back to my professional background. Because I strongly believe that "A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)." back in Puerto Rico (my first ICANN meeting) I came to the conclusion that ALAC /At Large needs to have a set of mechanisms via which these policies are identified, promoted and evaluated. These are the few things that I have managed to do in the period of June 2007 - present: - I initiated the "OneDay" Workshop for ALAC/AtLarge. - I have designed the agenda and conducted together with Cheryl and Izumi two "OneDay" workshops before ICANN meetings in Los-Angeles and New Delhi. - I have compiled OneDay Evaluation Reports, based on the feedback from ALAC/AtLarge members who have participated in these meetings; - Back in New Delhi, I made a statement on behalf of ALAC on Organizational Development; - I elaborated the ALAC Organizational Development document that focuses on several components of the ALAC's developments; - I proposed a document on "What is an ALAC/AtLarge" Working Group - and the document was used for planning activities per certain working groups during the OneDay workshop in New Delhi ; - I have recently transferred some of the good practices that came as a result of this Organizational Development processes on ALAC into the GNSO Improvements Report. - Along with all the above, I organized a three days training program on Internet Governance and Community Development in Moldova ( www.cmb.md/igf <http://www.cmb.md/igf><http://www.cmb.md/igf> ), during which we had a special session on ALAC/AtLarge @ ICANN. Training participants were 16 young leaders representing civil society, business sector, international community and the Government. - I have had several discussions with APTI members from Romania , as they were our project partners in the above Program, and as a result we have recently received their application in order to become an accredited ALS structure @ICANN from our part of the world. All the reports and documents I produced have been available since produced at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?organisational_development . To conclude, I want to encourage you to contact me/stay in touch in case you are interested in working on projects/initiatives dealing with ICT for Development, Access to Knowledge, Internet Governance, Community Development, IDNs, Education, Virtual Embassies, Climate Change, etc. both regionally and/or internationally! Good luck with all your initiatives and all the best! As ever, Veronica ________________________________ Veronica Cretu, President, CMB Training Center CMB - Promoting innovations in Communication, Management and Business Chisinau, Moldova www.cmb.md <http://www.cmb.md/><http://www.cmb.md/> www.cmb.md/igf <http://www.cmb.md/igf><http://www.cmb.md/igf> +373 22 27 45 04, 273196 email: vcretu(a)cmb.md <javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=EJQQNER&View=Compose&To=vcretu(a)cmb.md&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');> VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu <javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=EJQQNER&View=Compose&To=VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');> -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Out of the Loop
by Evan Leibovitch April 28, 2008

April 28, 2008

Hello all, As you may have noticed, I've been away from email and Skype for much of the last few days. As it was, the mental effort required to follow the multiple shell games going on regarding the recent GNSO document became a bit much. After a few days to ponder, and still not quite all there, I still find myself presented with a number of quandries regarding this whole multiple-issue mess. 1) So long as one-third of its members are un-representative delegates, parachuted in by ICANN, the ALAC _must_ _never_ assume that its working groups are fully representative of -- or responsible to -- the community at large. Alan said it "wasn't his place" to share early drafts of the GNSO document with the community ... if not him, then who? Striving for geographical diversity within subgroups is obviously pointless if regional "members" are unaccountable to their regions. As a result of this I feel it is the obligation of ALAC Staff to keep the community informed of what is going on, which includes what their "representatives" are doing on their behalf. We may not be able to hold our regional NomComm rep responsible for their actions, however ALAC as a whole *is* responsible -- and in the case of the GNSO documents -- has severely let down its community. I request from ALAC and ALAC-supporting staff a response regarding how such utter breakdowns will be avoided in the future. 1a) Given that ALAC has existed since 2002 (or maybe earlier), it amazes me how many fundamental errors such as this have not been detected and addressed earlier. It's hard to avoid a conclusion that, until now, ALAC has done so little of value that such levels of scrutiny have rarely been applied before. 2) Again, ALAC finds itself at having to react to the frames of reference determined by someone else as opposed to providing its own vision and initiative. Why do we keep finiding ourselves in this situation? Rather than determining our own goals, why are we forever -- on major issues of substance -- going deadline to deadline? There recent exchange between Danny and Beau, which identified four general components of GNSO, illustrates the kind of conversation should be ongoing. (I personally don't believe that each of the four ought to have an equal stake, but then that's up for dicussion and a what was said is a great starting point.) Having ongoing awareness of these issues makes it easy to respond to the agendas of others without having to always use their frames of reference. 3) Where are we now wrt the GNSO documents? Is it possible for Danny or Wendy or Beau and/or some others to re-draft the ALAC position on GNSO reform? Have we painted ourselves into a corner in the joint statement, precluding us from coming to different conclusions than it reached? Is it OK for the ALAC position and its "endorsed" joint statement to be contradictory? As Beau said, we should not be coming across as whiners. The joint process itself did not fail ALAC, our own inside portion of it did because if our members' unaccountability. So what are we going to do about it? If the joint statement is etched in stone and contains or ignores issues which are critical, I still do not have objections to issuing a statement of detachment. But if we do so, we need to provide an alternate vision, one that illustrates that perhaps the original tri-party frames of reference were too limiting in vision. DO we have people here with the skill and time to do so? Sorry for the rant. It's just that, after a big flurry of activity, there's been not much here, and the issues are very significant. Protesting is far easier than suggesting alternatives. Have we defined what are protesting? Have we produced an alternative? I'm sorry that I'm not more involved but it is draining me just to write this rambling plea. The issue(s) right now are all unresolved -- we have neither protested NOR re-crafted a position with ALAC NOR addressed the NomComm unaccountability issue. We need to re-engage, at many levels. - Evan

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Consequences of the GNSO
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

Jefsey and all, Unfortunately our INEGroup member in france are not and have never been in agreement with the WSIS or Tunis report which was not broadly internationally supported, but our members do support an open root structure, but such a structure must have a centralized control aspect. But we do not know now, and can never know for a certainty if Phillip Shepards document is a majority or miniority joint position unless or until other non-ICANN accepted or accredited user and industry groups have the opertunity to vote on such a position. -----Original Message----- >From: jefsey <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 27, 2008 8:30 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: listegenerale(a)franceatlarge.org >Subject: [At-Large] Consequences of the GNSO "minority report" > >Dear Friends, >Last week Phillip Shepard sent a document to the ICANN BoD which >reflects a joint position of "users groups represented within ICANN >today": ALAC, BIC, IPC, ISCPC, NCUC. (Proposal for GNSO Structural Change.doc). > >No one can miss the "minority report" nature of this document since >it only consider supply organisations having a contract with ICANN. >In terms of TLD Managers and Registry Managers, Domain Name users, >community membership and root file operators this only reflects a >closed ICANN next of skin minority, when one consider the ccTLDs, the >local and national communities, the GSMA and open-root proposition, >the special position of China, the Multilinc detected public TLD >aspirations, which will probably generalise to other countries in the >years to come. > >I am certainly ready to support that realistic approach. We have to >explain and discuss it within the france@large members, partners and >media and I want to be sure we are on the same wave length, as it >seems to depart from the ICANN traditional line. > >This means that ICANN would stick to the Tunis agreement (the USA >will manage the legacy and emergences are governed within the IGF >framework). This means that ICANN would adhere to the WSIS people >centric vision. This would lead to regional and national ICANNs >within the regional and local Internet Governance Fora. This means >that at the end of the JPA the US ICANN will network with its >Chinese, European, French ICANNs we are to help creating so they best >related together. Such a decentralised and subsidiarised apporach >would certainly be n tune with the world's digital ecosystem reality >and help the IETF in dealing with IDNA. > >However, these are new concepts with irreversible consequences for >the ALAC positionning. It is our job to explain it around and to give >the BoD feed-backs on the reactions we may perceive. We are to >organise in consequence. We therefore want to be sure we fully >understand each others. > >jfc > >--------- > >Chers Amis, >La semaine dernière, Phillip Shepard a envoyé un document au CA de >l'ICANN CdD reflète une position commune des "groupes d'utilisateurs >représentés au sein de l'ICANN aujourd'hui": l'ALAC, BIC, de l'IPC, >ISCPC, NCUC. . > >Nul ne peut manquer de voir la nature "rapport minoritaire" de ce >document car il n'envisage seulement que des organisations ayant un >contrat avec l'ICANN. En termes de domaine de premier niveau et de >gestionnaire de registre, d'utilisateurs de noms de domaine, de >Communauté et d'administrateurs de fichiers racine il ne reflète une >communauté ICANN réduite à sa famille proche, n'incluant pas les >ccTLD, les communautés locales et nationales, le GSMA et les >racines-ouvertes, la position particulière de la Chine, ce que >Multilinc détecte en terme d'aspirations à des TLD publics, qui sera >se généralisera probablement à d'autres pays dans les années à venir. > >Je suis certainement prêt à appuyer cette approche réaliste. Nous >devons expliquer et en discuter au sein des france@large, entre >membres, partenaires et médias, et je veux être sûr que nous sommes >sur la même longueur d'onde, car cela semble s'écarter de la ligne >traditionnelle de 'ICANN. > >Cela signifie que l'ICANN devrait s'en tenir à Tunis l'accord (les >États-Unis gérent l'héritage et émergences sont gérées dans le cadre >de l'IGF). Cela signifie que l'ICANN devrait adhérer à la vision du >SMSI centrée sur les gens. Cela conduirait à des instances régionales >et nationales du FGI avec des ICANNs régionales et locales. Cela >signifie qu'à la fin du JPA aux États-Unis l'ICANN serait en réseau >avec ses équivalents s chinois, européen, français que nous avons à >aider à créer afin de mieux les lier ensemble. Une telle approche >décentralisée et subsidiaire serait certainement en phase avec la >réalité de l'écosystème numérique mondial réalité, et aiderait l'IETF >à résoudre IDNA. > >Toutefois, ce sont de nouveaux concepts avec des conséquences >irréversibles pour le positionnement de l'ALAC. Il est de notre >devoir de l''expliquer autour de nous et de renvoyer au BoD de >l'ICANN des informations sur les réactions que nous percevrions. Nous >devons nous organiser en conséquence. Nous voulons être sûrs que nous >nus comprenons très bien. > >JFC > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

Dominik and all, Very good overview observations and remarks here. Our members including myself have expressed similar and are very supportive of Dominiks here. What is now, and has been for sense the inception of ICANN is that is is under the thumb predominantly of the hand that feed's it $$, namely registries, registrars, and IP interests. As such it is essentially still a club, not an international organization and lacks ethical and reasonable standards of any sort. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Apr 26, 2008 1:05 PM >To: gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements > >I have gone over many posts on several publicly accessible ICANN mailing >lists and other documents and have found several or more contributions >illuminating and explanatory in giving an insight of what is going on at >ICANN behind the scenes, provided we are able to read between the lines. >Nothing, what we have not known before but perhaps some details about >the technology of how craftily the public effort can be conducted and >manipulated. > >In fact, the common argument being always presented is how staffers are >all keen on supporting all types of public interests. But only up to a >moment when the public interests start colliding with leading interests >of the financial and other sharks. When realizing what is at stake the >stuffers immediately back off. Then the second sort of arguments comes >into play, such as a given proposal is too strong, fundamental and which >'will not fly' as registrars and registries will not support it anyway, >and the like. As of this moment an ordinary user (naive user, volunteer) >is being persuaded that a weaker solution is also acceptable, not >perhaps that effective but still better than nothing. Along with ongoing >verbal assurance that the staffers also share sympathy for public >interests trying doing their best to achieve the most feasible solution, >the user might easily get into a false but optimistic assumption as to >have achieved something, not achieving anything real though. > >What is worse is that the staffers are not even willing to present >prevailing views of the communities they represent once the views start >clashing with the leading interests. This is indeed an interesting >moment. >For example, the ALAC's updated domain tasting statement swiftly adopted >the draft motion logic without first discussing it properly with its >public audience. The question is why it acted this way, especially when >it had preferred and presented a stronger position in the first place >before. After all, it could have insisted on the stronger position. >Nothing dramatic would have happened. The ALAC has no voting power and >even if it had it is the BoD who makes final decisions. >The similar approach has also been adopted by several other >constituencies. Instead of clear presentation of prevailing views and >concerns of the constituency members and the underlying public audience, >the updated views swiftly adapted the actual view of the leading >interest. Such updated statements do not reflect previously preferred >constituency positions any longer but rather give in to the expectations >of the leading interests. As a result, the constituencies thus do not >act as self-confident sui juris bodies advocating the views they stand >for, which would be a solid basis for further deliberation and >consent-driven process based on seeking unifying arguments, but rather >quickly seek political consent managed among constituency >representatives; of course, driven by the leading interests they are >advised to pursue. This tendency is apparent in several places in the >Final Report on Domain Tasting when tracking the evolution of the >constituency statements. That is, over and over again politics instead >of deliberation. > >An interesting question is why it is, in certain circumstances, >necessary to rush for unified statements at any price prior proper >deliberation on the modifications. This, at first glance weird logic, >starts making sense when we realize that a) the issue has to be approved >quickly by minimizing the possible undesired impact of public comments, >and b) the overall responsibility must be spread and crumbled among all >involved parties so that nobody could be accused of anything. Either >everyone or no one. As a practical consequence, those people are doing >nearly nothing productive for their communities in such cases. Yes, >there are cases when a progress is remarkable and reasonable motions are >being approved but only if they do not clash with the leading interests >or they are so apparent that simply cannot be ignored. A good example >again is domain tasting. The phenomenon was recognized yonks ago and has >been known and heavily reported for years as an abuse being constantly >committed on wide community. So it had to be opened. But there is also >the clash here as it is a profitable business of very high importance >for all interested parties. The first shot was the $0.20-for-all-deletes >motion. The same one I wrote a joke about more than a year ago. That >time it was a joke only, but this time it seemed to become reality. The >currently proposed final motion is unclear and ambiguous enough to allow >for continuing the game under the hood. And when the public outreach >fades out the practice can be guardedly reinstated. > >I would therefore strongly recommend that all staffers look into the >ICANN Core Values again and carefully. Anyone who does not feel >comfortable with the Core Values should reconsider his or her stay >within the ICANN structures in order not to hinder active and competent >participants from fluent work on substantive ICANN issues. > >I see just one important ICANN issue to address, to encourage the public >community to clearly and dauntlessly identify and face those staffers >who are exploiting the ICANN mission in order to privilege their own >private businesses, deals, and interests to the detriment of all others. >Namely, those who are just spoiling valuable effort presented by honest >and competent members of the ICANN community. > >ICANN is an international organization representing all Internet users, >not a private business elite club of registrars and registries! > > >Dominik Filipp, a GNSO General Assembly list member > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] wikicann.org by france@large
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 26, 2008

April 26, 2008

JFC and all, You and/or franceatlarge.org has a few more problems than just 2. For instance, franceatlarge.org's DNS is mis configured, see:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&tok… and it appears that the registrant is an unknown person from execlub.org See:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=franceatlarge.org&server=&ema… and execlub.org's DNS is also badly mis configured and as such represents a clear and present danger to any user whom might visit that web site. See: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=execlub.org&token=06e0f6d… So you'll pardon me, and our members whom reside in France, which number approx. 3,400, we at this time cannot consider franceatlarge.org being very interested in their safty, security or any other of their Internet related interests or concerns at this time. I for one agree with our French members in this position and cannot immagine any self aware French citizen being interested in franceatlarge.org at this time. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 25, 2008 8:29 PM >To: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: adherents07(a)isoc.fr >Subject: [At-Large] wikicann.org by france@large > >Dear Friends, >we have two problems : >- to make Staff understand that for france@large, an on-line oriented >association, a money is only an hassle for the Treasurer :-) >- to make French people understand what ICANN is really about and to >give their @large's point of view. > >To address the second point we have added a wiki on ICANN issues on >our http://francealarge.org site. > >I would thank all the francophones and all those who can help us >making this wiki a nice and friendly place to learn in English, >French and possibly many others language about ICANN topics, in an >@large vision. We look for specialised synthesis able to be >understood by laymen and women. We also look for ties to be built >among French and foriegn @larges that could result in friendly f2f >discussions in Paris. > >Thank you ! >jfc >http://franceatlarge.org > >PS. france@large was created in 2000. It already is an "old" ALS :-) Time flows. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

The problem with ALAC Statements
by Danny Younger April 25, 2008

April 25, 2008

Let's talk about how the ALAC generates a "Statement" and what our NA reps on the ALAC can do to fix this problem. We saw an abuse of process in the ALAC Statement on the JPA which was put forward without an ALAC vote (for that matter, it was put forward even without ALAC-member consensus: "Whilst this document is not tendered to you as formally constituted consensus of the views of all of the At-Large community on this important matter..."). We recently have witnessed the ALAC "Joint Statement" that once again was not subject to a vote of the ALAC nor was it a product of any wide-reaching discussions. Further, almost all recent ALAC documents have had a public comment period of extremely limited duration: The (non-joint) ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements had a one week window for comments; the Statement on the Draft Operating Plan as well as the Statement on Travel Policy had a 10-day window for comment. Frankly, this sucks. Even ICANN routinely allows 3-4 weeks for comments. I see the same types of things going on in the NCUC where members are given one or two days maximum to elicit organizational feedback in response to a position "already" taken by the leadership. More and more, we are witnessing the emergence of private fiefdoms wherein just one or two people within a constituent group call the shots and generate the Statements without any truly broad consultation. We don't need this kind of pattern to take hold in the ALAC. It's time for our reps to take a principled stand on this issue and to insist on proper methodologies; otherwise, the NARALO should formally consider seceding from the ALAC. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

4 3

GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by At-Large Staff April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 3

GNSO reform and ALAC
by Evan Leibovitch April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Hello everyone, For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document: http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refo… A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself! http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner? Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery. Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline? Thanks! - Evan

6 10

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO reform and ALAC
by Danny Younger April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Jeff, Re: "If you view the current structure as having the pendulum swing too far in favor of the contracted parties..." That's certainly how I view it. For instance, how many registry/registrar regional sessions have been sponsored/supported by ICANN over the years? Has ICANN ever once sponsored a session just for the non-contracted parties? ICANN continues to operate as a Guild Manager favoring certain groups over others, and by now we're all getting pretty sick of it. Perhaps in the upcoming 2008 North American Regional Registry/Registrar Gathering in New Orleans next week, you can ask your peers to offer up a suitable counter-proposal that would better position the pendulum. regards, Danny --- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > It is of course no surprise that the same document > which purports to > "strike a balance" has ensured that the GNSO Council > could always obtain > a Supermajority Vote without ever even involving the > Registries and or > Registrars (who by no coincidence could actually be > bound by their > decisions). > > It is also no coincidence that no registries or > registrars were even > asked to participate in the process to come up with > the new structure. > It is extremely telling of how the signatories plan > on conducting policy > in the future ... namely, without the involvement of > the registries and > registrars. > > If you view the current structure as having the > pendulum swing too far > in favor of the contracted parties, the solution is > NOT to swing the > pendulum completely the opposite way, but rather to > find some common > ground. That did not happen here...... > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > > Business Development > > NeuStar, Inc. > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM > To: Danny Younger > Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and > ALAC > > What a farce. > > Whether or not the document is any good, I saw no > consultation with ALAC > that would support the claim that "The attached > document is a unique > collaboration of the joint users groups > represented within > ICANN today: > The At-Large Advisory Committee > The Commercial and Business Users Constituency > The Intellectual Property Constituency > The Internet Service and Connection Providers > Constituency > The Non-Commercial Users Constituency." > > --Wendy > > Danny Younger wrote: > > Evan, > > > > The ALAC has participated in a joint statement > without > > any consultative engagement with its own > membership; > > such behavior should not be countenanced -- the > final > > Statement is posted here: > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html > > > > regards, > > Danny > > > > > > --- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a > >> document being drafted on > >> a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some > >> sort of "public" > >> representation that has come up with some very > >> strange conclusions. Here > >> is an early draft of the document: > >> > > > http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20R > eform.pdf > >> A more recent version of the draft has > essentially > >> gutted ALAC's role > >> and calls for some sort of direct participation > by > >> ALSs. The truly > >> amazing thing is that this is being advanced as > >> having the support of > >> ALAC itself! > >> > > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html > >> Compounding the problem is that the closing of > >> public comments is this > >> week -- and the fact that the document is still > in > >> flux!! How can "the > >> public" adequately address a moving target in > this > >> manner? > >> > >> Frankly, not only the document but the process > that > >> has produced it is > >> flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now > >> heard from Beau and > >> Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC > list > >> -- why is it being > >> debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact > with > >> me). I am asking one > >> or more of you to help craft a NARALO position > that > >> we can submit this > >> week. I will do my best to help but I will likely > be > >> incapacitated for > >> most of the rest of this week because of surgery. > >> > >> Both the document (at least in its current form) > and > >> the process that > >> developed it IMO should not be submitted as > >> something with widespread -- > >> let alone universal -- public support. Can some > >> folks here please get > >> together to draft something upon which NARALO can > >> get a consensus > >> statement and submit before the deadline? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> - Evan > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School > of Law > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > .org > > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by Evan Leibovitch April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Hello Carlos, > Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about something, try to inform yourself first. > > this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint document with other constituencies neither negotiate secretly nothing. > > In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you personally in the next meeting. > In this case at least, Danny far from alone in his anger on this issue, so I ask you to please do not take issue personally with him. There are numerous complains within NARALO on the document, the process used to achieve it, and the level of consultation with the general At-Large community. In the view of everyone who has expressed an opinion within NARALO, this is a major step backwards in the evolution of ALAC after a long and tortured period of progress. Unlike Danny I will make no assumptions regarding how things were actually done; however, based on what we have seen this issue has been handled in a totally unacceptable manner. It is a fact that late changes were made to the document that directly affect -- and refer to -- ALSs and RALOs without their awareness or consultation. The changes contain language that adversely affect ALAC's own participation in the proposed new GNSO. It is also a fact that these changes were not conveyed to us by ALAC, not to RALO secretariats nor to individual ALSs; it was only the diligence of a number of NARALO members that brought this serious news to our attention. And finally ... the fact that the deadline for public comments exists just a few days after the final draft was published is absolutely unconscionable. It is an abdication of the authors' responsibility to the At-Large community to offer so little time to respond. So, Carlos, please do not take this personally with Danny. At least within NARALO, the anger over this issue is both deep and widespread. It is highly likely that we will submit a response that completely disassociates us from the recommendations, and states that they do not have the support of the At-Large community (at least in our region). - Evan

1 0