January 2009 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] Travel Problems
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 20, 2009

Jan. 20, 2009

Not correct. They were approved during the 13 Jan ALAC meeting. Even noted in the summary minutes (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009_summary_minutes, item 4). Besides, I thought that I remember hearing that invitations to the summit were based on application date, not approval date. Alan At 20/01/2009 03:51 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >We have not approved the application of Knujon to become an >accredited North American ALS, correct? > >This means, I assume, they are not eligible for funding to join us >at the summit? > >What a shame. > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >Evan Leibovitch >Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:56 PM >To: ALAC Internal List >Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Travel Problems > >Carlton Samuels wrote: > > That's what I always do! Just assumed that....... > >I don't think I've ever taken a trip (and this pre-dates being >involved in ICANN) in which I didn't tell the agent exactly what >flights I wanted. It can usually be screwed up so easily that it's >not worth leaving to chance. > >- Evan > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > >*** >Scanned > >** >This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) >named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any >attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are >not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, >redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, >or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received >this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply >e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from >your computer system. > >------ >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 >------

2 1

Nomination period open for interim NARALO rep to ALAC
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 19, 2009

Jan. 19, 2009

Hello all, As many of you may have read, this morning Robert Guerra sent a message to the global At-Large mailing list announcing his resignation from the position of NARALO representative to ALAC. As a result, we have a vacancy that requires filling. At the NARALO conference call this past Monday, I indicated to the group that Robert had emailed me with his intent to step down; in anticipation of that action we agreed upon a replacement procedure that would be both expedient and reasonably transparent. This is because Robert's 2-year term expires this June and the position will be up for election in May anyway. The person appointed now will be expected to participate in ALAC activities starting immediately upon appointment, attend the ICANN meeting in Mexico as part of ALAC rather than the Summit (the two schedules are not identical) as well as the ICANN meeting to be held June in Sydney. (Travel expenses will be covered.) According to the process decided on Monday, I will be accepting nominations for the vacancy up until the end of Sunday (January 18). Self-nominations are acceptable; you do not need a seconder and should submit your nomination to me directly by email. I will obviously not be standing for nomination myself. If I receive no nominations by Sunday I will start actively soliciting people until I get one willing to serve. If I receive one nomination by Sunday I will immediately appoint that person to serve the vacancy. If I receive more than one nomination by Sunday I will request the nominees to produce a brief (500 words or less) summary of why they they should be selected. Those summaries should be circulated on this mailing list. By Friday Jan 23 I will start polling NARALO members to determine a consensus selection, and appoint that person to the position. If there is no clear consensus I will appoint the person I believe to have attracted the most support. I myself will only participate in the selection process in order to resolve a lack of consensus. - Evan

6 7

Travel support for newly-elected ALAC member
by Nick Ashton-Hart Jan. 17, 2009

Jan. 17, 2009

Just FYI, the list of travellers receiving travel support is closed. If NARALO elects a new ALAC member from amongst those travelling to Mexico City already, they will of course receive support as they already are. If someone is elected who is not presently on the list of travellers, that person will be unable to participate in travel support. I wish we could be more flexible, the unfortunate fact is that there is a hard deadline of 23rd January to buy all tickets, and the room block at our hotel is now frozen (as is the one at the Sheraton). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Congressional Caucus State of the Net Event
by Danny Younger Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Paul, With regard to the upcoming January 14 Congressional Caucus State of the Net event, might you know if post-event transcripts or recordings will be available? I am given to understand that only some State of the Net panel sessions will be podcast... I note that together with Roger Cochetti, AT&T's Jeff Bruggeman, NetChoice's Steve DelBianco and Brazil's Everton Lucero you will be speaking on the topic of the "Future of ICANN and Internet Governance" I am sure that quite a few of us would have an interest in hearing the ICANN viewpoint and the views of your peers on the topic. (please note that I have copied this query to the NARALO list). Thanks, Danny

2 1

FW: Update on NCUC Fee Structure
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Forwarding this to NA at Milton's request. BB ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 7:18 PM To: new-constituencies(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Brendler, Beau Subject: Update on NCUC Fee Structure > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] > The NARALO's New Constituency Working Group seeks to post information on > membership fees for individuals that seek to join the established GNSO > constituencies. It would be appreciated if this information and any other > pertinent requirements for individual membership in the NCUC could be > relayed to us. > Danny: (I am copying Robin, who Chairs the NCUC, and Adam and Beau so that this information can be forwarded directly to the NARALO WG list) The membership fee of NCUC is of limited relevance because NCUC has only a few more months of existence before it dissolves under the new NCSG and an integrated membership system is instituted. Under that new structure, which as you know remains to be confirmed, I am not sure whether there will even be membership fees. Fees that are large enough to actually finance NCSG activities would keep out many members; fees that are small enough to not prevent people from joining add such a trivial amount to the budget that they are hardly worth the bother. But that issue remains to be resolved. For those who might want to join NCUC in the next few months, To answer your question directly, membershiop fees are stated directly on www.ncdnhc.org website membership forms: Small organization: $50 (fee can be waived by Exec. Comm. Decision if requested and organization shows budget problems or currency conversion issues.) Large organizations: $100 Provisional individual membership: free. See the NCUVC charter for definitions of small and large organizatons, and eligibility requirements. If between now and June any organizations wish to join I suspect that the Executive Committee would waive fees if asked, because of the impending change in structure. Regards, Milton Mueller *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO Teleconference Today 1900 UTC
by At-Large Staff Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Dear all, This is to remind you that there is a NARALO teleconference scheduled today at 1900 UTC. Please find participation information linked to the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?12_january_2009 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Alan, In truth there is no RAA "picket fence" -- it is a misnomer. Unlike the registry contracts that clearly stipulate "In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: (A) prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services; (B) etc.", the RAA does not have such restrictive language. In fact, it merely states "New and revised specifications and policies may be established on the following topics:" You will note that it does not state "New and revised specifications and policies may ONLY be established on the following topics:" Within the context of the RAA there is no picket fence; any topic is fair game for a consensus formulation. Danny --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: RAA Amendments Package Rejected > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 2:38 PM > That was the "interesting twist" that I was > alluding to, but didn't have the time or energy to > expand on last night. If you listened to the recording, you > may well have picked up that I was astounded as well, and > pressed the point. This is the first that I have > "consciously" heard about this, and I am pretty > sure that it has not been mentioned before. In fact, I would > have put a small bet that in previous discussions, even if > it was not clearly stated, that one could infer that the > *alternative* to approval was to do things as the contracts > come up. > > Given the few people on Council show joined in on my > amazement, perhaps everyone else understood. I plan to > pursue it on the list and see the reaction. > > Now given that some of the amendments are arguably beyond > the picket fence of consensus policy, the current position > may well be a reasonable one. But it was not what I > *thought* the motion was about. > > I had previously assumed that on contract renewal, ICANN > could impose any changes that it sought, and that no level > of consensus approval was required. On re-reading section > 5.4 now, I am no longer sure. > > Counsel and staff have now gone off to "discuss". > It will be interesting to get the results. > > To answer your last question, I have a theory or two on > what happened, but nothing more solid. I do not think it was > an internal disconnect. > > Alan > > > At 09/01/2009 02:03 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Alan, > > > > Having just listened to the GNSO recording, I will > admit to being astounded by Staff remarks to the effect that > their plan was to invoke the "Right to Substituted > Agreement" clause and to pass through the proposed > amendements in a fashion that would see these amendments > adopted by registrars on a piecemeal basis (whenever their > contracts renew which could be anytime between now and the > next five years). > > > > This was not what I recall being told at our briefing. > > > > Did I hear this wrong, or is there an an internal > disconnect at the Staff level? > > > > > > --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > From: Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > Subject: Re: RAA Amendments Package Rejected > > > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 1:55 AM > > > I actually posted the results (before the meeting > had even > > > ended), but on reading your note, I realized that > I had sent > > > it to At-Large STAFF instead of the At-Large list > > > (auto-complete is convenient sometimes, but other > times a > > > pain in the butt). > > > > > > The vote has not yet concluded, as there is the > option for > > > some e-mail votes. So it is not clear if it will > pass or > > > fail at the 50% level. I think there is a 3-day > period for > > > the remaining e-mail votes. > > > > > > However, based on the vote so far (12 yes, 7 no, > 4 abstain > > > out of a total of 27 votes if I got it correct), > the motion > > > cannot achieve the 66% vote required to be > considered a > > > consensus policy under the RAA rules. It is > unclear what > > > the next steps are. I would expect to hear > something from > > > ICANN legal counsel or Kurt Pritz in the next > while. > > > > > > There were some other interesting twists during > the > > > discussion that I will present in my GNSO Liaison > report in > > > the next day or so. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 08/01/2009 11:14 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > The GNSO Secretariat has posted a list of > resolutions > > > passed at today's GNSO Council session. The > motion to > > > accept the package of RAA amendments was not > cited, so > > > apparently it did not pass the required 2/3 > threshold. > > > > Perhaps Alan can fill us in on the vote > tally, and > > > whatever steps the Council next plans to take... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Alan, Having just listened to the GNSO recording, I will admit to being astounded by Staff remarks to the effect that their plan was to invoke the "Right to Substituted Agreement" clause and to pass through the proposed amendements in a fashion that would see these amendments adopted by registrars on a piecemeal basis (whenever their contracts renew which could be anytime between now and the next five years). This was not what I recall being told at our briefing. Did I hear this wrong, or is there an an internal disconnect at the Staff level? --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: RAA Amendments Package Rejected > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 1:55 AM > I actually posted the results (before the meeting had even > ended), but on reading your note, I realized that I had sent > it to At-Large STAFF instead of the At-Large list > (auto-complete is convenient sometimes, but other times a > pain in the butt). > > The vote has not yet concluded, as there is the option for > some e-mail votes. So it is not clear if it will pass or > fail at the 50% level. I think there is a 3-day period for > the remaining e-mail votes. > > However, based on the vote so far (12 yes, 7 no, 4 abstain > out of a total of 27 votes if I got it correct), the motion > cannot achieve the 66% vote required to be considered a > consensus policy under the RAA rules. It is unclear what > the next steps are. I would expect to hear something from > ICANN legal counsel or Kurt Pritz in the next while. > > There were some other interesting twists during the > discussion that I will present in my GNSO Liaison report in > the next day or so. > > Alan > > At 08/01/2009 11:14 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > The GNSO Secretariat has posted a list of resolutions > passed at today's GNSO Council session. The motion to > accept the package of RAA amendments was not cited, so > apparently it did not pass the required 2/3 threshold. > > Perhaps Alan can fill us in on the vote tally, and > whatever steps the Council next plans to take... > > > > > >

2 1

ALAC New gTLD statement
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

We need to make a statement of some sort -- it may already be too late, though my guess is that the rather unenthusiastic reception ICANN has received so far makes the concern less acute. That said, our deadline has come and gone. May I ask for guidance from staff to coordinate? And as for process? Are we to put the statement as written up for a vote? Or make it simple and just send up a line of advice to the board (we can cite the other documents as a backup rationale)? Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen in reviewing recent notes, mostly from John): The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD application and implementation process until the following steps are taken: * The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and evaluated. * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community. * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them. May I suggest to the ALAC ex com or whomever the appropriate authority is, to put this statement up for a vote from the ALAC as soon as possible? Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

1 0

RAA Amendments Package Rejected
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

The GNSO Secretariat has posted a list of resolutions passed at today's GNSO Council session. The motion to accept the package of RAA amendments was not cited, so apparently it did not pass the required 2/3 threshold. Perhaps Alan can fill us in on the vote tally, and whatever steps the Council next plans to take...

2 1