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

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Louis and all, Thanks for your interesting response, Louis. However in most cases within a language centric culture, the nuanced differences are minimal and usually understood by that broad social group/culture. One particular excpetion would be Chinese and the many different dialects and vast differences in Chinese cultures. As many of my relitives are French and most that are, live in various regions in France, yet have no problem with understanding each other. Other of my relitives live in Spain where Basque in some areas is dramatically different the Castilion Spanish which has some minor differences from laton american spanish, but not so great that good understanding is significantly impacted. So to say to me, "Try it", well I have many, many times and have had little significant problems. -----Original Message----- >From: Louis Houle <louis.houle(a)oricom.ca> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:39 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Cc: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, info(a)ipc.org, avri(a)acm.org, twomey(a)icann.org, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit : >> Jacque and all, >> >> Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, >> yet English is the boradly excepted international language >> and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language >> translation software is readily avaliable and has been for >> at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of >> being able to cope with the differences in language is >> a weak argument at best. Try again! >> >One might find out some differences between cultures, languages, >Jeffrey. Try it. Concerning translation software, the running gag in my >office is to test the newest translator, to process an inoffensive text >from French to English to French again. You always end up with two >different stories. The funniest comes up when you pour in what we call >«false friends» which is the same word in two different languages with a >different meaning. Ex.: «capitation» : a form of contracted dental care >(English) or a donation to your favorite church (French). If you don't >have a cultural background in both languages, the translation software >doesn't have it either. Try harder Jeffrey. > >Ami calmant ! >> >> As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, >> have members from all walks of like and means of employment. >> All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall >> taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was >> 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are >> over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet >> ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from >> them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have >> been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and >> the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. >> That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. >> The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of >> the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC >> to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution. >> >> So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being >> all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing >> to any of our members. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >>> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM >>> 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 >>> >>> Well Danny >>> I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The >>> oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to >>> participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the >>> information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's >>> little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the >>> language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, >>> like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. >>> If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 >>> years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing >>> this. >>> >>> I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not >>> broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs >>> probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved. >>> >>> How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been >>> posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? >>> Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a >>> series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be >>> the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. >>> So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the >>> system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my >>> opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would >>> join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was >>> affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might >>> be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would >>> have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join. >>> >>> I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with >>> the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet >>> Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer >>> organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in >>> the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my >>> aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful >>> research, except as directed by others. >>> >>> >>> Jacqueline >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>> Sent: Monday, April 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: >>>> >>>> >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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, Yes I am aware that the issues I briefly outlined are subject matter for the GNSO Improvements. But also many of the issues I briefly outlined are central to the ALAC and the ALS'es including the NARALO. This is why I mentioned them on this thread. However thank you for again emphisizing that the issues I briefly mentioned are inclusive to the necessary improvements to the GNSO and have been sense it replaced the DNSO and were never implimented for a number of special interest objection reasons. As long as the GNSO councils members are predominantly controled by a few special interest constituencies, progress, solving of issues will either never occur, or be very problamatic and likely end up with compermises that don't solve those problems or are symptomatic at best. Such eventualities are inconsistant with good structure, and leadership. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 9, 2008 3:18 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, icann-list(a)sorehands.com, Brenbe(a)consumer.org, bfausett(a)internet.law.pro, carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm, john-ietf(a)jck.com, sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Jeff, > >All the things you are mentioning is subject matter of the GNSO >Improvements. That is what should be in focus in the first place. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:06 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; Wendy Seltzer; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; >na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: At-Large; icann-list(a)sorehands.com; Brenbe(a)consumer.org; >bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; >denise.michel(a)icann.org; john-ietf(a)jck.com; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org; stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Dominik and all, > > My and our members main problem with the ALAC, the ALS'es and the >NARALO is a complete lack of transparency, openness, and significant >propensity for censorship that has already been displayed. > > The problems with the ALAC structure, the GNSO structure are nearly >the same the ALAC and the GNSO are wanting or seemingly wanting to >restrict based on various unreasonable and improper rule making, active >participation and membership of all classes of stakeholders be they >users or registrant-users of various sorts. This does not boad well for >ICANN meeting it's mission requirements and significantly undermines the >MOU. As such, there can be no policy decision that has any form of >legitimate consensus, and certainly not measured consensus. > > Of course all of the above has been, and remains the central and >predominant question as to ICANN's legitimacy sense it's conception. > > If indeed openness and transparency as well as accountability are ever >to be achieved no stakeholder can be denied both a voice and a vote as >to any policy that may be considered, nor can any stakeholder, most >especially users be denied or moderated from access and intimidated or >refused the ability to propose policy to any public resource including >public forums such as these. Of course this would require that users >regardless of status, have the predominant position on the ICANN board, >the GSNO council, and within or as a part of any ALS, including of >course the NARALO. > > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>Sent: May 8, 2008 8:38 AM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >>Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting >> >>Evan, >> >>If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement > >>worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the > >>new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the >>important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on >>3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which >>the statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint >>statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. >> >>Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, >>but I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further >>refinement. >> >>However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or > >>reconsider the statement. >> >>Dominik >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >>Leibovitch >>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM >>To: Wendy Seltzer >>Cc: At-Large >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting >> >>Hi Wendy, >>> While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in >>> the >>> 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected > >>> cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with >>> compelling >> >>> explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. >>> >>This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. >> >>It was noted that >>-- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for >>Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. >>-- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has >>special significance (and publicity potential) >>-- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when >>planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of >>this. >> >>> With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC > >>> and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is >>> signed >> >>> on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >>> process and substance. >>> >>Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have > >>expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. >> >>To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint >>statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in >>approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm > >>not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint >>statement as it has currently been negotiated. >> >>> The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an >"ALAC" >> >>> review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >>structure. >>> >>This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of >>ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to >>completely separate the two. >> >>Can you clairify what they meant? >> >>- Evan >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>n >>.org >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>n.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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, My and our members main problem with the ALAC, the ALS'es and the NARALO is a complete lack of transparency, openness, and significant propensity for censorship that has already been displayed. The problems with the ALAC structure, the GNSO structure are nearly the same the ALAC and the GNSO are wanting or seemingly wanting to restrict based on various unreasonable and improper rule making, active participation and membership of all classes of stakeholders be they users or registrant-users of various sorts. This does not boad well for ICANN meeting it's mission requirements and significantly undermines the MOU. As such, there can be no policy decision that has any form of legitimate consensus, and certainly not measured consensus. Of course all of the above has been, and remains the central and predominant question as to ICANN's legitimacy sense it's conception. If indeed openness and transparency as well as accountability are ever to be achieved no stakeholder can be denied both a voice and a vote as to any policy that may be considered, nor can any stakeholder, most especially users be denied or moderated from access and intimidated or refused the ability to propose policy to any public resource including public forums such as these. Of course this would require that users regardless of status, have the predominant position on the ICANN board, the GSNO council, and within or as a part of any ALS, including of course the NARALO. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 8, 2008 8:38 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Evan, > >If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement >worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the >new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the >important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on >3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which the >statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint >statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. > >Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, but >I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further >refinement. > >However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or >reconsider the statement. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM >To: Wendy Seltzer >Cc: At-Large >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Hi Wendy, >> While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the >> 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected >> cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling > >> explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. >> >This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. > >It was noted that >-- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for >Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. >-- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has >special significance (and publicity potential) >-- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when >planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of >this. > >> With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC >> and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed > >> on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >> process and substance. >> >Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have >expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. > >To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint >statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in >approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm >not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement >as it has currently been negotiated. > >> The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" > >> review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >structure. >> >This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC >in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely >separate the two. > >Can you clairify what they meant? > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 277k 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] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

Dominik and all, I didn't find Domain Name Tasting at the URL Matthias provided either. I can only guess that either ICANN is not interested for whatever reasons to actually solve the Domain Name Tasting problem and are happy with their half-baked solution, or are so embarased by Domain Name Tasting that it was purposfully not put on the agenda and seemingly wish to sweep the problem under the rug, so to speek... -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 7, 2008 1:56 AM >To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au, Matthias Langenegger <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>, alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >I cannot find Domain Tasting there. > >Where is it? > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au] >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:41 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; 'Matthias Langenegger'; >alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >The Agenda is / will be found here >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 as Matthias mentioned >in his email Discussion items will be uploaded shortly... > >CLO > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik >Filipp >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:49 PM >To: Matthias Langenegger; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Is there a list of issues to be discussed during the teleconference >available? > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthias >Langenegger >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:06 AM >To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Dear all, > >This is to remind you about the upcoming monthly ALAC teleconference >taking place on Tuesday, 13 May at 1330 UTC. Please find additional >information such as participation instructions on the link below. > >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 > >A draft meeting agenda will be uploaded shortly. There will be Spanish >and French interpretation for this call. If you would like to be on the >French or the Spanish channel or if you would like to be on the English >channel and need to be dialed out to, please make sure your name is on >the dial-out list on the meeting page. > >Best Regards, >-- >Matthias Langenegger >At-Large Coordination Officer >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 >Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 >Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

Wendy and all, Thank you for you interesting and seemingly well reasoned and frank remarks. My only comments are that the ALAC is still too disinclusive, seemingly intent of exclusion of users be they non-registrant users or registrant-users. Second, process within the ALAC is far too complex and as such also represents a barrier to praticipation and interest. This is certainly not a healthy thing. Third, ALS'es role in the ALAC and ICANN doesn't seem to be well thought out and seeks to segment, ergo devide users into catagories by country or origin which is not in the best interest of ICANN and can be by design, a catalist for introducing controversy where otherwise such would not always or even likely exist. As Lincoln said, a divided house cannot stand... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: May 7, 2008 2:34 PM >To: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >This will serve as my April-May liaison report. > >Preliminary minutes from the Board's April 20 meeting are now online. ><http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30apr08.htm> > >I was unable to make this meeting because it was 2 am locally, and a >power outage cut my alarm clock. From the minutes and from follow-on >conversations, however, I note several items of interest to At Large: > >The At-Large Summit, ALAC review, and GNSO improvements. > >While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the >2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected >cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling >explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. > >With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC >and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed >on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >process and substance. > >>From the minutes: >> The Chair was interested in the GNSO review and improvements and inquired as to whether Susan Crawford was working with the GNSO on implementation of the recommendations. Roberto Gaetano advised that Susan was not chairing but participating, and that she is acting as liaison to the GNSO in order to facilitate the possible implementation. Gaetano continued that the comment period had just ended and that one proposal to have different structure for GNSO Council, or alternatively to go with new proposal of the three stakeholder groups to lump registries and registrars in one group. The proposal came from Philip Sheppard and it is signed by the cross constituencies, NCUC and ALAC. Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would leave it to ALAC Liaison Wendy Seltzer to comment to the Board, but that in his understanding there is a significant discussion about whether ALAC endorses the proposal. Gaetano indicated that there would be additional discussion with the goal of making a decisi >on at the Paris ICANN meeting. > >The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" >review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >structure. > >The Board also authorized steps toward DNSSEC. > >Please let me know if you have questions or comments. > >--Wendy > >-- >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 > >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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

JFC and all, Interesting response JFC. My remarks and response interspersed below. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: May 7, 2008 5:47 PM >To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org>, 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan(a)telly.org>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: 'At-Large' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >At 01:26 08/05/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >>The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not >>the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions >>that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind >>ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For >>instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role. > >One of our members suggested on this list there is a need to carry a >survey on the ALSes. >What they really are. How they view themselves, what they expect from >ICANN and are ready to retrofit. > >We started discussing this a little bit. Two ideas emerged quickly: Who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket. I've seen very little emerging ideas, but alot or non-releated prognosticating. > >(1) to try to identify if they are ultimately interested in >controlling the ALAC, benefiting from ICANN, or making the Internet >work through ICANN. This has a real impact on the way they can >organise, be motivated, and be of use. However, to have a full >picture, one also needs to know what ICANN plans regarding the other >fora our members attend ... You JFC know and have known that ICANN should be predominantly at the service and "Controled" by the users and registrants as it is these two constituencies that are largely unrepresenteded that pay for ICANN's existance and it's bills. However I recognize fully you amongst a very few others dislike the idea that users and registrants should be driving ICANN policy if not predominantly determining what those policies should be and currently are not. Certainly you JFC amongst a few others have been seeking financial supprot from ICANN so that ALS'es such as Franceatlarge can be funded and additionally that travel expenses for ALS representatives , very loosly stated or recognized ligitimately > also be funded from ICANN's wallet. Frankly to expect such is unreasonable, not ethical, and places any ALS'es members at the whim of ICANN itself, leaving ALS members without a stronge position by which to advocate policy initiatives or address issues from a position of strength. > >(2) there should be a very simple rated questionnaire ALS should >answer every months to report their informed opinion on ICANN issues. >With a possibility to add comments. This would permit to obtain users >tendencies. Documented reports by mails are inadequate for trend >analysis and are too complex to spot, work on, write in English, etc. I seen no good reason for a monthly report as issues can be introduced here or on ALS forums. > >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] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Dominik and all, Try to remember that registrars do not manage ccTLD's or TLD's of any sort, registries do. Secondly, the AGP can be an aid in managing credit card transactions for registrars as it does buy them some time to research a suspicious transaction. What the AGP also allows for unfortunately, is Domain Name Tasting and Warehousing via speculation. These are not healthy activities but do offer a skewed and new market for Domain Names which depending on which side of the issue one might be, is also less than healthy for ecommerce in general as it generates a significant lack of confidance in the ecommerce broad market as well as provides a haven for fraud's of many other sorts such as phishing, Domain Name 'ghosting', and huge amounts of spam. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 6, 2008 9:28 AM >To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >Danny, > >I do not think this is necessary. Managing credit card frauds is a >technical aspect other businesses are facing and have to be dealing with >daily. There are scenarios and/or case-studies available on the Internet >describing how to minimize such threat. Just google 'credit + card + >fraud' and you'll get many interesting pages addressing this in detail. > >The simplest solution would be to ask the registrars/registries running >non-AGP based ccTLDs. In fact, most registrars run such ccTLDs so they >already KNOW how to manage it. I do not see a reason to handle this for >them, especially when we are not asked to do that. Furthermore, every >registrar might differ in expectations of how such a mechanism should >work and suit their needs. > >Or, we could consider the suggestions in the first paragraph the >alternative and suitable way. > >Dominik > > >Danny Younger wrote: >>Let's be clear about something... the Registrar >>Constituency's primary argument in favor of retaining >>the AGP is for its use as a device within which credit >>card fraud may be managed. At the very least, if we >>will be arguing to eliminate the AGP, we should be >>offering up an alternative and suitable way to >>mitigate Registrar fraud concerns if we hope to arrive >>at a consensus-based solution. > >>The only way that I can think of having this >>accomplished is via new language in a Credits Section >>within the Service Level Agreement that is part of the >>relevant Registry-Registrar Agreement -- see for >>example http://www.verisign.com/static/002136.pdf > >>This, of course, will require cooperation from the >>Registries who may not be prone to re-drafting their >>agreements. > >>Does anyone else that is advocating AGP elimination >>have any concrete suggestions to deal with the fraud >>concerns that can be put on the table? > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ 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] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Dominik and all, I understood what you were talking about in your original response/statement. I only was reminding you and others that registrars are not registries and that and that registries manage ccTLD's, not registrars. Nomenclature is important as I am sure you know when making arguments of this sort. I also agree, and I believe that most of our members also agree that the AGP's existence is at best very questionable and registrars arguments for keeping the AGP certainly do not make sense. What is not stated but alluded to only once by Ross, is that registrars are mostly desiring the AGP to remain is that they still gain a registration fee, and ICANN gains additional fees the more registrations of Domain Names that are registered especially with Domain Name Tasters and the registrars that turn blind eye towards that nefarious activity. But the truth, as you know Dominik, is often hard to come by these days, and when it is truthfully exposed, the person exposing it is usually badly treated and/or received. This represents a horrible mindset, but one that has dominated ICANN's decisions sense it's conception. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 7, 2008 12:39 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >Jeff, > >Registrars deal with ccTLDs in terms of ordering the names of such >ccTLDs via credit card system. In such a case the AGP cannot be an aid >in managing credit card transactions simply because it is not >applicable. And nothing happens... >Similarly all other objections listed by registrars make no sense in >such cases. And nothing happens... > >That is what I am talking about. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:36 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on >GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >Dominik and all, > > Try to remember that registrars do not manage ccTLD's or TLD's of any >sort, registries do. Secondly, the AGP can be an aid in managing credit >card transactions for registrars as it does buy them some time to >research a suspicious transaction. What the AGP also allows for >unfortunately, is Domain Name Tasting and Warehousing via speculation. >These are not healthy activities but do offer a skewed and new market >for Domain Names which depending on which side of the issue one might >be, is also less than healthy for ecommerce in general as it generates a >significant lack of confidance in the ecommerce broad market as well as >provides a haven for fraud's of many other sorts such as phishing, >Domain Name 'ghosting', and huge amounts of spam. > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>Sent: May 6, 2008 9:28 AM >>To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Subject: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on >GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS >input] >> >>Danny, >> >>I do not think this is necessary. Managing credit card frauds is a >>technical aspect other businesses are facing and have to be dealing >>with daily. There are scenarios and/or case-studies available on the >>Internet describing how to minimize such threat. Just google 'credit + >>card + fraud' and you'll get many interesting pages addressing this in >detail. >> >>The simplest solution would be to ask the registrars/registries running > >>non-AGP based ccTLDs. In fact, most registrars run such ccTLDs so they >>already KNOW how to manage it. I do not see a reason to handle this for > >>them, especially when we are not asked to do that. Furthermore, every >>registrar might differ in expectations of how such a mechanism should >>work and suit their needs. >> >>Or, we could consider the suggestions in the first paragraph the >>alternative and suitable way. >> >>Dominik >> >> >>Danny Younger wrote: >>>Let's be clear about something... the Registrar Constituency's primary > >>>argument in favor of retaining the AGP is for its use as a device >>>within which credit card fraud may be managed. At the very least, if >>>we will be arguing to eliminate the AGP, we should be offering up an >>>alternative and suitable way to mitigate Registrar fraud concerns if >>>we hope to arrive at a consensus-based solution. >> >>>The only way that I can think of having this accomplished is via new >>>language in a Credits Section within the Service Level Agreement that >>>is part of the relevant Registry-Registrar Agreement -- see for >>>example http://www.verisign.com/static/002136.pdf >> >>>This, of course, will require cooperation from the Registries who may >>>not be prone to re-drafting their agreements. >> >>>Does anyone else that is advocating AGP elimination have any concrete >>>suggestions to deal with the fraud concerns that can be put on the >>>table? >> >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list >>s.icann.org >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>------ > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] [GTLD-WG] New GTLDs Working Group - Telephonic Meeting and Upcoming Work
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Nick and all, Thank you for posting this. It is clear that ICANN and in particular the GNSO council do not know what the "State of the Art" in respect to the introduction of new gTLD's, nor is their really any such thing as the "State of the Art" respective to gTLD's or the introduction of new gTLD's. This said and hopefully fully understood, I welcome this Telephinic Meeting as there has been little discussion of late regarding the introduction of new gTLD's on this forum or elseware. The criterion of ICANN insisting on or considering insisting on business models and inparticularly financial requirements for new gTLD's is inconsistant with introduction of new business opertunities in ecommerce. It is also illogical that other root structures which have introduced new gTLD's outside of the legacy internet are unfairly being excluded by intent by ICANN and as such represents a less than preferable IT advancement and more rubust and viable ecommerce opertunities and expansion. This seems to represent a restraint of trade that could and at some point, likely future legal turmoil that cannot reasonably benifit the public or private sectors. -----Original Message----- >From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 6, 2008 7:19 PM >To: "gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [GTLD-WG] New GTLDs Working Group - Telephonic Meeting and Upcoming Work > >Dear new GTLD working group members: > >As many of you may know, the ALAC has resolved in its April teleconference that a statement of the community on the proposed policy framework for implementation of new generic top-level domains in the root should be completed in advance of the Paris meeting. > >After consulting with the focal point for the new GTLDs work on the ALAC, Beau Brendler, he asked me that I contact you with a view to arranging a teleconference to: > > * Get an update from the ICANN staff on the progress of the implementation planning that is in process; > * Review the draft statement previously developed to revise or approve the text (which can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtlds_documents) > >We will shortly send out a Doodle meeting request so that a date and time can be chosen which is most convenient to all of you. We will then ensure that the relevant ICANN staff are available to brief you on the 'state of the art' with respect to the first bullet. > >The homepage for your working group is: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy >-- > >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 >_______________________________________________ >GTLD-WG mailing list >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann… > >Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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

ALAC Statement
by Danny Younger May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Cheryl, I have taken note of the ALAC submission entitled "At-Large Advisory Committee Statement. To the ICANN Board on the Board Governance Committees Recommendations for Improvements to the Generic Names Supporting Organisation" posted on Sunday 4 May 2008 at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00031.html Would you be good enough to inform us when the ALAC formally convened and ratified this document through a voting process? Please let us know the voting tally and which committee members voted in favor and which were opposed. Thank you, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

2 1