September 2008 - NA-Discuss

Travel Policy - Call for discussion
by Robert Guerra Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

As mentioned in the NA RALO conference call just now, I would like to again voice my interest that a discussion be done in advance of the Nov Cairo meeting. That way, the region can come up with points and/or issues that the regional reps can raise at the meeting. regards Robert

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] What ICANN pays their top execs
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

Without intending to justify either the absolute salaries or the 1-year increases, I did note that in at least one case, the 2006 number was for a partial year, so the actual annual increase was less the simple division of the two numbers. Alan At 22/09/2008 02:28 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >Danny: > >Thanks for posting details on ICANN's IRS (Tax) filing. > >Just goes to prove that ICANN does have funding to pay for things. >Seems, like in the banking sector they prefer instead to pay their >executives vs the public they serve. > >With congress seeking to limit executive compensation, perhaps same >thing should happen to ICANN. > >Robert > > >On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [excerpt] > > > > "This is an outrageous 74% increase year-over-year for total > > compensation for the top 5" > > > > http://gordoncook.net/wp/?p=274 > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > 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 > > ------ > > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Grassroots Petition re: Expired Domain Names
by Danny Younger Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

On the GA list Peter Dambier has pointed to a petition to ICANN posted at http://www.petitiononline.com/DNSquatt/petition.html The petition begins with: "We, the undersigned, believe that what is happening nowadays, regarding the handling of expired internet domain names, by most of the registrars, is nothing but a crude form of extortion." This is an issue with which I have a great deal of sympathy as I view registrar collusion with aftermarket profiteers as an antitrust violation that has the effect of artificially raising consumer prices. At issue is whether we continue to tolerate registrar Direct Transfer clauses that tread upon the intent of the Expired Domain Deletion Consensus Policy. This problem has been upon us for years -- see the 2004 ICANN Advisory at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21sep04-1.htm We should begin to deal with this issue, and I applaud those members of the public that have chosen to take a stand.

2 2

What ICANN pays their top execs
by Danny Younger Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

[excerpt] "This is an outrageous 74% increase year-over-year for total compensation for the top 5" http://gordoncook.net/wp/?p=274

2 1

ICANN Compliance Department response to issues raised about the WHOIS WDPRS System
by At-Large Staff Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

Dear NARALO and ALAC Members: As you will recall, questions were raised by Danny about a number of specific issues related to the WDPRS. The Compliance Department has provided the following response to the various points Danny raised. We hope you will find this response helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Independance of Westlake Review
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

Hi Tricia, In Paris you asked me to e-mail you with the details of my concerns with the way in which Westlake was appointed as the ALAC independent reviewer. Here are the points that I was hoping you could address: As per the attached, the original deadline for the RFP was July 23. In the meetings in Paris, Westlake reported that their proposal was in prior to Aug. 30. - Why was this deadline re-opened? - How many bidders were compliant with the original deadline? - Did Westlake submit their proposal on time? - Was there an assessment of the original bidders and what was the result of that assessment? As you can well imagine, these questions directly impact on the “independence” of this review. Thank you kindly for your time, Darlene Thompson (on behalf of N-CAP)

1 0

Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus. Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night. If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes. - Evan --------------------------------------------------------- NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak. Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency. This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.

8 13

Warning: Crackdown on ICANN Travel Funding Abuse
by Danny Younger Sept. 18, 2008

Sept. 18, 2008

http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/repayment-expenses-report-17sep08.…

1 0

You may not transfer your domain
by Danny Younger Sept. 17, 2008

Sept. 17, 2008

Jon, Perhaps you could clarify this matter. The Network Solutions Service Agreement states: "In addition, you agree that you may not transfer your domain registration to another domain name registrar for sixty (60) days after there has been a change in your Primary Contact information or WHOIS Administrative Contact information for your account(s)." I don't recall this reason being cited among the 9 specific instances whereby a transfer may denied as specified in the Consensus Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars -- see http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Perhaps you can help us understand why the actions of your firm should not be regarded as a callous violation of ICANN Consensus Policy? Thanks, Danny

1 0

Nominating Period for ALAC position ends 21 September
by At-Large Staff Sept. 17, 2008

Sept. 17, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you that the nominating period for the open position of regional representative to the ALAC ends this Sunday, 21 September. So far, only the incumbent Beau Brendler has been nominated. He was nominated by Darlene Thomson on September 9th and seconded by Gareth Shearman on the same day. If you would like to nominate additional candidates, please announce it on this mailing list. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0