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

Meeting Summary Minutes
by Thompson, Darlene April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Hi all, This e-mail is to those of you on today's conference call. I always prepare meeting summary minutes on these calls but like to put them out to the list before posting them as I am far from perfect and sometimes cannot manage to capture everything that is said. If you don't mind having a quick read over these and then adding (or changing) anything that I might have missed or worded incorrectly, I would be appreciative. Sometimes its hard to hear what everybody is saying (especially if I am coughing and blowing my nose at the same time like today). D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca <mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca>

1 0

Minutes for NARALO Teleconference Posted
by At-Large Staff April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Dear All: We have posted the minutes for the just-concluded NARALO teleconference at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_14_april_2008. The Action Items will be posted shortly. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Evan and all, Evan, I have recently grown to value and respect your opinion as they appear to be pretty level headed. I feel the same about Danny's as well. I think why Danny is participating and sharing his thoughts is to try to emphisize his perception of where the ALS's are, and should be heading. It's clear that there is some few that disagree with him greatly and some that disagree with him on certain aspects of that heading or direction. It's clear that the ALAC did not press hard enough and basically caved on the Tasting issue and solution. Hence tasting continues relitively unabaited at this very moment. That not a solution based manner to address existing issues or problems, it is a compitulation. It does seem to me as you, Danny, Wendy, Beau, and myself along with a few others are strongly opposed to this ALAC draft of Accountability framework. It is most certainly not appropriate at a minimum. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 2:19 PM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > > >Danny Younger wrote: >> If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they could easily be reading the relevant news articles and blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring organizational >> representatives into their midst on a periodic basis just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot >> less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the necessary surveys and polls. >> > >Truth be told, to get the level of public opinion ALAC seeks to extract >from the public, a global polling strategy -- in multiple languages -- >will likely be more expensive than ALAC's budget. > >The cost gap would be even greater if ICANN staff figured out how to >engage their ALSs to assist with translation services, a point I raised >at the Translation workshop in Delhi but was rebuffed. > >> They want real solutions to real problems... that means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to engage in research, to declare their findings based upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations based upon the findings. >> > >And that has been starting to happen, as witnessed with the position on >the AGP/tasting. A good start, IMO. > >> Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does happen, where findings are noted, and where policy recommendations do emerge. > >... and the AGP was defended. No thanks. > >> It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed experiment. > >I can't speak for the time before we got here; I would agree that the >first five years was largely a sham, but I can't change the past. Much >has changed since the RALOs were actually formed. > >> I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this rathole. >> > >Then why are you here? If we're as useless as you say, then you're >wasting your time talking to us. > >- Evan > 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] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Darlene and all, Yes it is true that some of the ALS staff are greatly in need of education. The users are not so much in such great need of education. Users should be and will be the educators to ALS staff members it appears to me thus far, unless particular members of the ALAC staff are so erogant as to be less than excpeting of that great lack in education and definate need to recieve it. I shall continue to endevor to share what knowledge I have, am learning, and shall continue to learn with the ALAC staff, whom seems to be less than able or willing to learn on thier own verition. We also all should try to remember that educaton is an ongoing process although some knowledge already obtained by some of us whom are professionals in the IT industry, such as myself have not adaquately shared what knowledge they do have regarding information that has been known for several if not many yesrs that has only recently become factors and issues in the operation of the Internet at a very basic level which has a direct effect on all users. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:59 AM >To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >I *SO* agree with Jacqueline on this. > >How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that >haven't been educated. This should be our major thrust right now if we >actually want community involvement. > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >Jacqueline A. Morris >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:03 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart >Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Evan >IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, > >brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I >haven't >read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the >document. > > I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if >we >haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE >we >ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info >out to >their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that >includes >a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then >they >can try to comment. >And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period >of >time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. > >Jacqueline >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >and >Conflicts of Interest Policy > >> >> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN >staff >> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >> >> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so >much >> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >> exists. >> >> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste >extremely >> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >> public to them. >> >> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we >are >> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful >inclination >> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >> serves. >> >> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and >to >> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough >to >> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and >attract >> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >> >> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral >to >> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and >this >> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and >require >> significant background information supplied in the local street >language. >> >> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest >sin >> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >> >> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That >ALAC >> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >> image appears to indicate that: >> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >> serve its mandate >> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >> serves >> 4) all of the above >> >> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by >a >> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >> >> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional >obligations. >> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can >be >> handled with common sense and discretion. >> >> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the >public >> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that >education. >> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >> >> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ >ALAC >> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >> >> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >> NARALO chair. >> >> - 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 NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ 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

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Jacque and all, Than why is there a "At-large Staff" mailing list? Just for fun I suppose?! Or is that "At-large Staff" mailing list also misleading? I do realize fully that the "Staff??" is all volunteers. After all the ALAC still has no funding to pay for a truely professional staff. Of course ICANN even with funding seems to have a difficult time hiring competant staff. I also realize fully that any user that participates in the ALS's is strictly voluntary as well. And one would hope that that remains unchanged and without constraint or prejudice. And further, I certainly am not part of the ALAC staff, yet I am able to post to the staff mailing list. Not that I mind, but that also is misleading in and of itself. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:38 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Hi >My ALS has no "STAFF". It's a volunteer organisation, and we have no staff. >The members do the work. A lot of ALSes have no official staff. So this >statement, indicates to me a great misunderstanding of the groups that are >ALSes and the resources available to us. > > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:25 PM >To: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" ><Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFrameworkandConflictsof Interest Policy > >> Darlene and all, >> >> Yes it is true that some of the ALS staff are greatly >> in need of education. The users are not so much in such >> great need of education. Users should be and will be the >> educators to ALS staff members it appears to me thus far, >> unless particular members of the ALAC staff are so erogant >> as to be less than excpeting of that great lack in education >> and definate need to recieve it. >> >> I shall continue to endevor to share what knowledge I >> have, am learning, and shall continue to learn with the >> ALAC staff, whom seems to be less than able or willing to >> learn on thier own verition. >> >> We also all should try to remember that educaton is an >> ongoing process although some knowledge already obtained >> by some of us whom are professionals in the IT industry, >> such as myself have not adaquately shared what knowledge >> they do have regarding information that has been known >> for several if not many yesrs that has only recently >> become factors and issues in the operation of the Internet >> at a very basic level which has a direct effect on all >> users. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >>>Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:59 AM >>>To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch >>><evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss >>><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>I *SO* agree with Jacqueline on this. >>> >>>How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that >>>haven't been educated. This should be our major thrust right now if we >>>actually want community involvement. >>> >>>D >>> >>>Darlene A. Thompson >>>Community Access Program Administrator >>>Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>>P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>>Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>>Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>>Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>>E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>Jacqueline A. Morris >>>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:03 PM >>>To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart >>>Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>Evan >>>IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, >>> >>>brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I >>>haven't >>>read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >>>I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the >>>document. >>> >>> I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if >>>we >>>haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >>>manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE >>>we >>>ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info >>>out to >>>their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >>>So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >>>would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >>>discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that >>>includes >>>a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >>>background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then >>>they >>>can try to comment. >>>And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period >>>of >>>time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. >>> >>>Jacqueline >>>-------------------------------------------------- >>>From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >>>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >>>To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" >>><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>and >>>Conflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>> >>>> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >>>> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN >>>staff >>>> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >>>> >>>> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >>>> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >>>> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so >>>much >>>> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >>>> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >>>> exists. >>>> >>>> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >>>> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste >>>extremely >>>> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >>>> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >>>> public to them. >>>> >>>> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we >>>are >>>> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >>>> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful >>>inclination >>>> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >>>> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >>>> serves. >>>> >>>> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >>>> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and >>>to >>>> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >>>> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >>>> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough >>>to >>>> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >>>> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and >>>attract >>>> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >>>> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >>>> >>>> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >>>> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >>>> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral >>>to >>>> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and >>>this >>>> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >>>> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >>>> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >>>> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >>>> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >>>> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and >>>require >>>> significant background information supplied in the local street >>>language. >>>> >>>> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >>>> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >>>> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest >>>sin >>>> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >>>> >>>> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >>>> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That >>>ALAC >>>> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >>>> image appears to indicate that: >>>> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >>>> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >>>> serve its mandate >>>> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >>>> serves >>>> 4) all of the above >>>> >>>> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >>>> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >>>> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >>>> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by >>>a >>>> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >>>> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >>>> >>>> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional >>>obligations. >>>> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can >>>be >>>> handled with common sense and discretion. >>>> >>>> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >>>> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the >>>public >>>> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that >>>education. >>>> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >>>> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >>>> >>>> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ >>>ALAC >>>> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >>>> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >>>> >>>> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >>>> NARALO chair. >>>> >>>> - Evan >>>> >>>> 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] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Jacque and all, Indeed as you state, this is ONE, but only ONE of the endeavors that ALAC staff should do, but it is a minor one at best. The users ARE or should be King, not the other way around. Debating with them regarding reasonable issues they themselves have uncovered or discovered, isn't nearly as helpful or good service to them, and listening and accepting those issues or problems they themselves have uncovered or discovered and are seeking redress and/or solutions to or have already effected solutions for. More importantly taking input FROM users via whatever means available as to users self recognized issues and sharing those broadly to than debate and hopefully arrive at a solution for is serving much more effectively and directly. Taking already known and effected solutions to issues that users have effected themselves is yet another much more important means of serving when that information is shared on public non-restrictive ALAC forums such as this one should be and remain. So again in conclusion to your remarks you so kindly shared with all of us, I cannot see how "loyalty oaths" or the like aid in accomplishing good service to users by users or staff members. I cannot see, nor reasonably contemplate, how this ALAC draft in any meaningful way addresses service TOO users, for users, or by users. I can see clearly how this ALAC draft serves ONLY ALAC and/or ICANN staff members however. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:19 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Huh?? >ALSes are supposed to go out into their communities and engage the >public (registrant and non-registrant) in the debate on the issues. >The public will debate about what they want to debate about. ALSes >then bring back the information to ICANN. >That to me is serving, not being served. > >Quoting "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>: > >> Jacque and all, >> >> I agree with you that what you state was Dannys point. >> I was making a different point in response, which differs from >> yours below. That yet again being that no, we do not hear from >> very many registrant-users, especially those that are independent >> registrants-users. We need much more participation from them >> than we're getting. We also need for the nor-registrant-users >> to engage the ALS's not so much the other way around as you >> seem to believe. ALS's should be the servant, not the served. >> ICANN largely seems to have forgotten this, and the public >> needs a means by which to remind the ICANN Bod and staff of >> such. Users are not children or babies, they don't need to be >> spoon fed, nor do they wish to be so regarded. >> >> Now this said in different terms yet again, if the ALS's >> should be designed ONLY for non-registrant users, than the paradigm >> changes to the ALS's being centric ONLY to the issues of non-registrant >> users of the PUBLIC. If so than "loyalty oaths" and other already >> articulated parts of the ALAC draft are at a minimum wholly inappropriate, >> if not down right deranged in nature. Most of the draft is certainly >> significantly insulting in nature to any adult or even teenager, for >> gods sake! >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >>> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 9:28 AM >>> To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, >>> "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Nick Ashton-Hart >>> <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >>> AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>> We hear from the registrant users all the time, that's Danny's point. The >>> issue is to hear form the others. That's what at Large is trying to do, and >>> that's where you can be constructive and offer suggestions to engage the >>> general public, not the registrants who are already engaged! >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:16 PM >>> To: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" >>> <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >>> AccountabilityFrameworkandConflictsof Interest Policy >>> >>>> Darlene and all, >>>> >>>> Darlene, >>>> >>>> Please try to remember that registrants are users/members >>>> of the public just as much as non-registrants are. Seperating >>>> the the two is only useful in matter of perspectives, not >>>> actuallity. We all need to hear from users-registrants just >>>> as much as we need to hear form non-registrant-users. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >>>>> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:39 AM >>>>> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" >>>>> <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick >>>>> Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>>> andConflicts of Interest Policy >>>>> >>>>> Danny, >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I would have to agree with your statement, "The truth of the >>>>> matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional >>>>> topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they >>>>> purportedly represent." This goes right to the heart of what Jacqueline >>>>> was saying. ALSs are not registrants. ICANN wants public opinion on >>>>> stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing interest in. >>>>> >>>>> So, how do we get more public interest in this (and I DON'T mean >>>>> registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)? What are your suggestions >>>>> on how to improve things, rather than just pointing out where everybody >>>>> else is failing? >>>>> >>>>> D >>>>> >>>>> Darlene A. Thompson >>>>> Community Access Program Administrator >>>>> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>>>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>>>> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>>>> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>>>> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>>>> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM >>>>> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick >>>>> Ashton-Hart >>>>> Cc: NA Discuss >>>>> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>>> andConflicts of Interest Policy >>>>> >>>>> Darlene, >>>>> >>>>> The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the 15 >>>>> areas of interest cited all relate to information that >>>>> can readily be found through ICANN's homepage. >>>>> >>>>> Sufficient information is out there already for those >>>>> that care about DNS issues. >>>>> >>>>> The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for >>>>> Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each issue >>>>> -- if that approach is taken then all you will wind up >>>>> with is something as useless as the "Guide to the DNS >>>>> for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN >>>>> consultant. >>>>> >>>>> Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about for >>>>> which sufficient information is lacking. >>>>> >>>>> Information is out there for those that wish to seek >>>>> it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, >>>>> non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of a >>>>> lack of educational materials. I don't buy the >>>>> argument. >>>>> >>>>> The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a >>>>> passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no >>>>> deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly >>>>> represent. >>>>> >>>>> Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect the >>>>> interests of the intellectual property crowd. By >>>>> contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in >>>>> protecting us -- and that is not something that a >>>>> Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will >>>>> cure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, >>>>>> anyways) responded >>>>>> to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests >>>>>> personally. If >>>>>> something affects me personally, I read up on it and >>>>>> respond, as well. >>>>>> If it doesn't I might not. >>>>>> >>>>>> ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by >>>>>> people putting in >>>>>> hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their >>>>>> work. They don't sit >>>>>> behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go >>>>>> finding stuff and >>>>>> working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their >>>>>> jobs) directly. You >>>>>> must have tons more time at work to read this stuff >>>>>> than the entire ALS >>>>>> community put together. We all have jobs that >>>>>> actually take up huge >>>>>> portions of our time/life. >>>>>> >>>>>> When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that >>>>>> easier to digest >>>>>> information would be soon coming out. As Nick has >>>>>> reported there have >>>>>> been various impediments to this but that it should >>>>>> "soon" be coming. >>>>>> Once this is available, then I would suggest that >>>>>> the NARALO do, maybe, >>>>>> a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to >>>>>> all ALSs - both for >>>>>> their info and for their web sites. >>>>>> >>>>>> In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't >>>>>> being properly educated; >>>>>> the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The >>>>>> real At-Large cares, >>>>>> reacts and responds; they don't." That is really >>>>>> wrong. The At-Large >>>>>> does care - about those issues that affect them. >>>>>> Comparing them to a >>>>>> registrant that has just had the plug pulled on >>>>>> their web site is >>>>>> completely misleading. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's >>>>>> the information we >>>>>> need to get out to them. What is happening that >>>>>> they should care about? >>>>>> What response is needed? Put out information such >>>>>> as that, and we will >>>>>> get more input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Constant negativity sure won't help, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> D >>>>>> >>>>>> Darlene A. Thompson >>>>>> Community Access Program Administrator >>>>>> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>>>>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>>>>> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>>>>> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>>>>> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>>>>> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM >>>>>> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan >>>>>> Leibovitch; Nick >>>>>> Ashton-Hart >>>>>> Cc: NA Discuss >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >>>>>> Accountability Framework >>>>>> andConflicts of Interest Policy >>>>>> >>>>>> Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at >>>>>> all >>>>>> out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" >>>>>> >>>>>> When these organizations signed up they agreed to >>>>>> (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >>>>>> issues, >>>>>> (2) enable discussions among their members on the >>>>>> issues; and >>>>>> (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >>>>>> development, discussions and decisions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ICANN website currently contains information on: >>>>>> a. accountability and transparency >>>>>> b. idn fast-track discussions >>>>>> c. mid-term review considerations >>>>>> d. the 2007 Annual report >>>>>> e. root-server agreements >>>>>> f. new gtlds >>>>>> g. independent reviews >>>>>> h. compliance initiatives >>>>>> i. whois issues >>>>>> j. the registrar accreditation agreement >>>>>> k. nominating committee activities >>>>>> l. iPV6 >>>>>> >>>>>> There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >>>>>> discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >>>>>> the translation program, and to a host of other >>>>>> subjects. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >>>>>> teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >>>>>> capable of reading an ALS application form, but >>>>>> nothing else. >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem >>>>>> manage >>>>>> to read everything under the sun about an issue and >>>>>> know where to send their complaints and concerns, >>>>>> yet >>>>>> ALSs remain clueless. >>>>>> >>>>>> Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >>>>>> way to the ICANN blog and to the public >>>>>> participation >>>>>> sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >>>>>> were absolutely silent. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >>>>>> educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >>>>>> at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >>>>>> responds; they don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> ____________ >>>>>> Be a better friend, newshound, and >>>>>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >>>>>> >>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >>>>>> >> >> 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 >> >> >> 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] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Jacque and all, I agree with you that what you state was Dannys point. I was making a different point in response, which differs from yours below. That yet again being that no, we do not hear from very many registrant-users, especially those that are independent registrants-users. We need much more participation from them than we're getting. We also need for the nor-registrant-users to engage the ALS's not so much the other way around as you seem to believe. ALS's should be the servant, not the served. ICANN largely seems to have forgotten this, and the public needs a means by which to remind the ICANN Bod and staff of such. Users are not children or babies, they don't need to be spoon fed, nor do they wish to be so regarded. Now this said in different terms yet again, if the ALS's should be designed ONLY for non-registrant users, than the paradigm changes to the ALS's being centric ONLY to the issues of non-registrant users of the PUBLIC. If so than "loyalty oaths" and other already articulated parts of the ALAC draft are at a minimum wholly inappropriate, if not down right deranged in nature. Most of the draft is certainly significantly insulting in nature to any adult or even teenager, for gods sake! -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 9:28 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >We hear from the registrant users all the time, that's Danny's point. The >issue is to hear form the others. That's what at Large is trying to do, and >that's where you can be constructive and offer suggestions to engage the >general public, not the registrants who are already engaged! > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:16 PM >To: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" ><Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFrameworkandConflictsof Interest Policy > >> Darlene and all, >> >> Darlene, >> >> Please try to remember that registrants are users/members >> of the public just as much as non-registrants are. Seperating >> the the two is only useful in matter of perspectives, not >> actuallity. We all need to hear from users-registrants just >> as much as we need to hear form non-registrant-users. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >>>Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:39 AM >>>To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" >>><jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick >>>Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>Danny, >>> >>>Actually, I would have to agree with your statement, "The truth of the >>>matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional >>>topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they >>>purportedly represent." This goes right to the heart of what Jacqueline >>>was saying. ALSs are not registrants. ICANN wants public opinion on >>>stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing interest in. >>> >>>So, how do we get more public interest in this (and I DON'T mean >>>registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)? What are your suggestions >>>on how to improve things, rather than just pointing out where everybody >>>else is failing? >>> >>>D >>> >>>Darlene A. Thompson >>>Community Access Program Administrator >>>Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>>P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>>Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>>Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>>Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>>E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >>>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM >>>To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick >>>Ashton-Hart >>>Cc: NA Discuss >>>Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>Darlene, >>> >>>The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the 15 >>>areas of interest cited all relate to information that >>>can readily be found through ICANN's homepage. >>> >>>Sufficient information is out there already for those >>>that care about DNS issues. >>> >>>The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for >>>Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each issue >>>-- if that approach is taken then all you will wind up >>>with is something as useless as the "Guide to the DNS >>>for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN >>>consultant. >>> >>>Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about for >>>which sufficient information is lacking. >>> >>>Information is out there for those that wish to seek >>>it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, >>>non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of a >>>lack of educational materials. I don't buy the >>>argument. >>> >>>The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a >>>passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no >>>deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly >>>represent. >>> >>>Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect the >>>interests of the intellectual property crowd. By >>>contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in >>>protecting us -- and that is not something that a >>>Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will >>>cure. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, >>>> anyways) responded >>>> to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests >>>> personally. If >>>> something affects me personally, I read up on it and >>>> respond, as well. >>>> If it doesn't I might not. >>>> >>>> ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by >>>> people putting in >>>> hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their >>>> work. They don't sit >>>> behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go >>>> finding stuff and >>>> working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their >>>> jobs) directly. You >>>> must have tons more time at work to read this stuff >>>> than the entire ALS >>>> community put together. We all have jobs that >>>> actually take up huge >>>> portions of our time/life. >>>> >>>> When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that >>>> easier to digest >>>> information would be soon coming out. As Nick has >>>> reported there have >>>> been various impediments to this but that it should >>>> "soon" be coming. >>>> Once this is available, then I would suggest that >>>> the NARALO do, maybe, >>>> a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to >>>> all ALSs - both for >>>> their info and for their web sites. >>>> >>>> In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't >>>> being properly educated; >>>> the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The >>>> real At-Large cares, >>>> reacts and responds; they don't." That is really >>>> wrong. The At-Large >>>> does care - about those issues that affect them. >>>> Comparing them to a >>>> registrant that has just had the plug pulled on >>>> their web site is >>>> completely misleading. >>>> >>>> So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's >>>> the information we >>>> need to get out to them. What is happening that >>>> they should care about? >>>> What response is needed? Put out information such >>>> as that, and we will >>>> get more input. >>>> >>>> Constant negativity sure won't help, though. >>>> >>>> D >>>> >>>> Darlene A. Thompson >>>> Community Access Program Administrator >>>> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>>> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>>> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>>> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>>> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM >>>> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan >>>> Leibovitch; Nick >>>> Ashton-Hart >>>> Cc: NA Discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >>>> Accountability Framework >>>> andConflicts of Interest Policy >>>> >>>> Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at >>>> all >>>> out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" >>>> >>>> When these organizations signed up they agreed to >>>> (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >>>> issues, >>>> (2) enable discussions among their members on the >>>> issues; and >>>> (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >>>> development, discussions and decisions. >>>> >>>> The ICANN website currently contains information on: >>>> a. accountability and transparency >>>> b. idn fast-track discussions >>>> c. mid-term review considerations >>>> d. the 2007 Annual report >>>> e. root-server agreements >>>> f. new gtlds >>>> g. independent reviews >>>> h. compliance initiatives >>>> i. whois issues >>>> j. the registrar accreditation agreement >>>> k. nominating committee activities >>>> l. iPV6 >>>> >>>> There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >>>> discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >>>> the translation program, and to a host of other >>>> subjects. >>>> >>>> So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >>>> teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >>>> capable of reading an ALS application form, but >>>> nothing else. >>>> >>>> Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem >>>> manage >>>> to read everything under the sun about an issue and >>>> know where to send their complaints and concerns, >>>> yet >>>> ALSs remain clueless. >>>> >>>> Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >>>> way to the ICANN blog and to the public >>>> participation >>>> sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >>>> were absolutely silent. >>>> >>>> The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >>>> educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >>>> at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >>>> responds; they don't. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>________________________________________________________________________ >>>> ____________ >>>> Be a better friend, newshound, and >>>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >>>> >>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >>>> 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

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Danny and all, Danny, I partly agree with what you state below. Certainly the PSO was and is still a waste of time and resources which as a registrant and a user I am helping pay for. The Ga is not but is constrained by ludicrous posting rules and so forth. What ICANN seems to want from what I have read for the past 9+ years in involvement with ICANN, is only what a few constituencies desire, those being the IPC, the registries constituency, and the BC. Users and independent registrants as well as non-commercial registrants don't seem to matter to the ICANN Bod and staff much if at all. So whatever the IPC, BC, REgistry constituency wants, they get full support from the ICANN bod and staff. Everyone else either goes along or is ostracized accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 12:39 PM >To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they >could easily be reading the relevant news articles and >blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they >certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of >thousands of dollars to bring organizational >representatives into their midst on a periodic basis >just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot >less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the >necessary surveys and polls. > >But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after. > >They want real solutions to real problems... that >means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to >engage in research, to declare their findings based >upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations >based upon the findings. > >As this hasn't been happening and as there is no >likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at >all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no >continuing purpose. > >Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the >former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain >ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be >discontinued. > >Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement >could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does >happen, where findings are noted, and where policy >recommendations do emerge. > >It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed >experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, >the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a >representative unit after four years -- you've had >more than ample time to prove the worth of the >ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the >job done. > >I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this >rathole. > > >--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: > >> Danny, >> >> Actually, I would have to agree with your statement, >> "The truth of the >> matter is that most ALSs have only a passing >> interest on an occasional >> topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those >> that they >> purportedly represent." This goes right to the >> heart of what Jacqueline >> was saying. ALSs are not registrants. ICANN wants >> public opinion on >> stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing >> interest in. >> >> So, how do we get more public interest in this (and >> I DON'T mean >> registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)? What >> are your suggestions >> on how to improve things, rather than just pointing >> out where everybody >> else is failing? >> >> D >> >> Darlene A. Thompson >> Community Access Program Administrator >> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM >> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan >> Leibovitch; Nick >> Ashton-Hart >> Cc: NA Discuss >> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >> Accountability Framework >> andConflicts of Interest Policy >> >> Darlene, >> >> The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the >> 15 >> areas of interest cited all relate to information >> that >> can readily be found through ICANN's homepage. >> >> Sufficient information is out there already for >> those >> that care about DNS issues. >> >> The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for >> Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each >> issue >> -- if that approach is taken then all you will wind >> up >> with is something as useless as the "Guide to the >> DNS >> for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN >> consultant. >> >> Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about >> for >> which sufficient information is lacking. >> >> Information is out there for those that wish to seek >> it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, >> non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of >> a >> lack of educational materials. I don't buy the >> argument. >> >> The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only >> a >> passing interest on an occasional topic; they have >> no >> deep commitment to defend those that they >> purportedly >> represent. >> >> Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect >> the >> interests of the intellectual property crowd. By >> contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in >> protecting us -- and that is not something that a >> Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will >> cure. >> >> >> >> >> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: >> >> > Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the >> US, >> > anyways) responded >> > to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their >> interests >> > personally. If >> > something affects me personally, I read up on it >> and >> > respond, as well. >> > If it doesn't I might not. >> > >> > ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by >> > people putting in >> > hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their >> > work. They don't sit >> > behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go >> > finding stuff and >> > working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or >> their >> > jobs) directly. You >> > must have tons more time at work to read this >> stuff >> > than the entire ALS >> > community put together. We all have jobs that >> > actually take up huge >> > portions of our time/life. >> > >> > When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told >> that >> > easier to digest >> > information would be soon coming out. As Nick has >> > reported there have >> > been various impediments to this but that it >> should >> > "soon" be coming. >> > Once this is available, then I would suggest that >> > the NARALO do, maybe, >> > a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to >> > all ALSs - both for >> > their info and for their web sites. >> > >> > In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't >> > being properly educated; >> > the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. >> The >> > real At-Large cares, >> > reacts and responds; they don't." That is really >> > wrong. The At-Large >> > does care - about those issues that affect them. >> > Comparing them to a >> > registrant that has just had the plug pulled on >> > their web site is >> > completely misleading. >> > >> > So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's >> > the information we >> > need to get out to them. What is happening that >> > they should care about? >> > What response is needed? Put out information such >> > as that, and we will >> > get more input. >> > >> > Constant negativity sure won't help, though. >> > >> > D >> > >> > Darlene A. Thompson >> > Community Access Program Administrator >> > Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >> > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >> > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >> > Phone: (867) 975-5631 >> > Fax: (867) 975-5610 >> > E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Danny Younger >> [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM >> > To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan >> > Leibovitch; Nick >> > Ashton-Hart >> > Cc: NA Discuss >> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >> > Accountability Framework >> > andConflicts of Interest Policy >> > >> > Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at >> > all >> > out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" >> > >> > When these organizations signed up they agreed to >> > (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >> > issues, >> > (2) enable discussions among their members on the >> > issues; and >> > (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >> > development, discussions and decisions. >> > >> > The ICANN website currently contains information >> on: >> 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] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Jacque and all, I disagree with your paradigm. ALL registrants are also users. Not all users are registrants. So I believe it is you whom is confused and confusing others with that paradigm. Registrants ARE members of the PUBLIC! It is true that NEW users need to spend some time getting up to speed on how the internet works and what makes it work. The more detail they have in this regard, the better informed they will become. Most users now are long time users, at least this is so in the US and most of europe. Yet new information, issues, problems arise nearly every day. This is true in the security and privacy area of issues alone. As such keeping abreast of these events and subsequent issues/problems is an important area that it seems to me the ALS's should be addressing aggressively and in doing so be assisting in providing accurate, up to date, and relevant information that is available or becoming available from professionals such as myself and others... -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:28 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Danny >Again and again, you are confusing the audience! At Large isn't the >Registrants constituency. It's the PUBLIC. > >And gTLD Registrants aren't the whole of AtLarge general public. They are a >part of the billions who form the Internet using public. > >Registrants spend time getting up to speed, reacting and posting and sending >emails because it affects them directly, in the pocket, in most cases, and >hence they have something pushing them to go to the website, read up etc. >Unfortunately the general public doesn't have those drivers. So the ALS >members are trying to help bring the issues to them. > >They are also not Internet professionals. They are volunteers trying to >help. They are trying to get up to speed in a reasonably short time, with >way too much information almost only in English on a very confusing website. > >BUT they don't have the time to go through a full education on ICANN, in >English, or spend funds they don't have developing materials and >translating them to help the users understand what the ALSes are asked by >ICANN to explain to them. So I think that if ICANN wants the PUBLIC >involved, as opposed to REGISTRANTS (who are, like Registrars, registries >etc, internet professionals or semi-professionals), asking for some >technical assistance in reaching out to the public, in creating >backgrounders, brochures, etc isn't too much of a stretch. If ICANN tried to >educate/reach out to the general public in other ways, that would probably >be would be way way more resource-hungry, and they'd almost certainly have >to create the same documents. > >Jacqueline > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:31 AM >To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" ><jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org>; "Nick >Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >> Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at all >> out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" >> >> When these organizations signed up they agreed to >> (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >> issues, >> (2) enable discussions among their members on the >> issues; and >> (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >> development, discussions and decisions. >> >> The ICANN website currently contains information on: >> a. accountability and transparency >> b. idn fast-track discussions >> c. mid-term review considerations >> d. the 2007 Annual report >> e. root-server agreements >> f. new gtlds >> g. independent reviews >> h. compliance initiatives >> i. whois issues >> j. the registrar accreditation agreement >> k. nominating committee activities >> l. iPV6 >> >> There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >> discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >> the translation program, and to a host of other >> subjects. >> >> So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >> teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >> capable of reading an ALS application form, but >> nothing else. >> >> Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem manage >> to read everything under the sun about an issue and >> know where to send their complaints and concerns, yet >> ALSs remain clueless. >> >> Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >> way to the ICANN blog and to the public participation >> sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >> were absolutely silent. >> >> The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >> educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >> at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >> responds; they don't. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> Be a better friend, newshound, and >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >> >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] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Darlene and all, Darlene, Please try to remember that registrants are users/members of the public just as much as non-registrants are. Seperating the the two is only useful in matter of perspectives, not actuallity. We all need to hear from users-registrants just as much as we need to hear form non-registrant-users. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:39 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Danny, > >Actually, I would have to agree with your statement, "The truth of the >matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional >topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they >purportedly represent." This goes right to the heart of what Jacqueline >was saying. ALSs are not registrants. ICANN wants public opinion on >stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing interest in. > >So, how do we get more public interest in this (and I DON'T mean >registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)? What are your suggestions >on how to improve things, rather than just pointing out where everybody >else is failing? > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM >To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick >Ashton-Hart >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Darlene, > >The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the 15 >areas of interest cited all relate to information that >can readily be found through ICANN's homepage. > >Sufficient information is out there already for those >that care about DNS issues. > >The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for >Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each issue >-- if that approach is taken then all you will wind up >with is something as useless as the "Guide to the DNS >for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN >consultant. > >Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about for >which sufficient information is lacking. > >Information is out there for those that wish to seek >it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, >non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of a >lack of educational materials. I don't buy the >argument. > >The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a >passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no >deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly >represent. > >Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect the >interests of the intellectual property crowd. By >contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in >protecting us -- and that is not something that a >Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will >cure. > > > > >--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: > >> Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, >> anyways) responded >> to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests >> personally. If >> something affects me personally, I read up on it and >> respond, as well. >> If it doesn't I might not. >> >> ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by >> people putting in >> hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their >> work. They don't sit >> behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go >> finding stuff and >> working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their >> jobs) directly. You >> must have tons more time at work to read this stuff >> than the entire ALS >> community put together. We all have jobs that >> actually take up huge >> portions of our time/life. >> >> When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that >> easier to digest >> information would be soon coming out. As Nick has >> reported there have >> been various impediments to this but that it should >> "soon" be coming. >> Once this is available, then I would suggest that >> the NARALO do, maybe, >> a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to >> all ALSs - both for >> their info and for their web sites. >> >> In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't >> being properly educated; >> the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The >> real At-Large cares, >> reacts and responds; they don't." That is really >> wrong. The At-Large >> does care - about those issues that affect them. >> Comparing them to a >> registrant that has just had the plug pulled on >> their web site is >> completely misleading. >> >> So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's >> the information we >> need to get out to them. What is happening that >> they should care about? >> What response is needed? Put out information such >> as that, and we will >> get more input. >> >> Constant negativity sure won't help, though. >> >> D >> >> Darlene A. Thompson >> Community Access Program Administrator >> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM >> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan >> Leibovitch; Nick >> Ashton-Hart >> Cc: NA Discuss >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >> Accountability Framework >> andConflicts of Interest Policy >> >> Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at >> all >> out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" >> >> When these organizations signed up they agreed to >> (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >> issues, >> (2) enable discussions among their members on the >> issues; and >> (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >> development, discussions and decisions. >> >> The ICANN website currently contains information on: >> a. accountability and transparency >> b. idn fast-track discussions >> c. mid-term review considerations >> d. the 2007 Annual report >> e. root-server agreements >> f. new gtlds >> g. independent reviews >> h. compliance initiatives >> i. whois issues >> j. the registrar accreditation agreement >> k. nominating committee activities >> l. iPV6 >> >> There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >> discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >> the translation program, and to a host of other >> subjects. >> >> So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >> teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >> capable of reading an ALS application form, but >> nothing else. >> >> Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem >> manage >> to read everything under the sun about an issue and >> know where to send their complaints and concerns, >> yet >> ALSs remain clueless. >> >> Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >> way to the ICANN blog and to the public >> participation >> sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >> were absolutely silent. >> >> The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >> educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >> at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >> responds; they don't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________ >> Be a better friend, newshound, and >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >> 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

2 1