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

Re: [NA-Discuss] The October NARALO call and Canadian Thanksgiving
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

I have no problem with moving it to the 19th (and the equivalent permanently). For the record, I will not be available for the call on Nov 9 (but would on the 16th :-)). Alan At 05/10/2009 04:28 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I guess, when we planned that the NARALO conference calls would take place >the second Monday of the month, we didn't realise that the October meeting >would ALWAYS conflict with Canada's Thanksgiving Day. > >Does anyone have a problem with having this month's call on the 19th, one >week later? That is just days before the Seoul meeting and probably good >timing. > >And... going forward ... can we just make this permanent, that it's the 2nd >Monday of the month except for October, where it's the third Monday? > >- Evan >------ >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

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

<<> > The document you linked makes no mention of Park Avenue Capital LLC > > Not sure why it would. MoldData is the sponsoring organisation that the > domain was redelegated to then and that remains the case today.>> Well, Park Avenue Capital LLC is the company a registrant enters into an agreement with when purchasing a .MD domain, the contract does not indicate any relationship or agreement with MoldData. It also does not indicate that registrant is subject to policies issued by Moldova. Meanwhile MoldData's website indicates only transactions done through MoldData are valid. How does the consumer know with whom he's doing business? <<These delegation reports are all that is published after a successful request.>> So the relevant communications declaring accountablity, openness, and transparency to the Internet community are not made public? It seems without the verifiable proof, the chain of legitimacy starts to fall apart. You're citing documents no one can see as the foundation for trust. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > From: Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, October 05, 2009 6:44 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > On 5/10/09 3:39 PM, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > The document you linked makes no mention of Park Avenue Capital LLC > > Not sure why it would. MoldData is the sponsoring organisation that the > domain was redelegated to then and that remains the case today. > > > The document also states: "According to the relevant communications, > > MoldData is suited to be inclusive of, and accountable to the Moldovan > > Internet community and to operate through appropriate open, transparent, > > and inclusive processes consistent with existing obligations within > > Moldova." Yet the relevant communications are not provided. > > These delegation reports are all that is published after a successful > request. > > kim

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Thanks again Kim. The document you linked makes no mention of Park Avenue Capital LLC The document also states: "According to the relevant communications, MoldData is suited to be inclusive of, and accountable to the Moldovan Internet community and to operate through appropriate open, transparent, and inclusive processes consistent with existing obligations within Moldova." Yet the relevant communications are not provided. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > From: Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, October 05, 2009 6:08 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > On 5/10/09 2:58 PM, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > So given statements like: > > > > "Why do you think governments have free reign over their ccTLDs?" > > > > "we only approve delegation and redelegation requests to meet a number > > of criteria." > > > > and the with policy process your describe, national sovereignty is not > > the ultimate authority of a ccTLD. Rather ICANN is. It sounds like an > > organizational map might put ccTLDs under ICANN on the same level as > > registries. > > Within certain parameters (like requiring the sponsoring organisation to be > based in the country), the ultimate authority over a ccTLD should be its > local Internet community. ICANN's due diligence is focussed on whether a > submitted request appropriately reflects that. > > > Is there documentation that demonstrates interests of the local Internet > > community in the case of .MD/Moldova? > > The redelegation report is at > http://www.iana.org/reports/2003/md-report-22oct03.html > > kim

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Interesting. So given statements like: "Why do you think governments have free reign over their ccTLDs?" "we only approve delegation and redelegation requests to meet a number of criteria." and the with policy process your describe, national sovereignty is not the ultimate authority of a ccTLD. Rather ICANN is. It sounds like an organizational map might put ccTLDs under ICANN on the same level as registries. Is there documentation that demonstrates interests of the local Internet community in the case of .MD/Moldova? Thanks > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > From: Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org> > Date: Mon, October 05, 2009 5:20 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > On 5/10/09 1:26 PM, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > This is at odds with everything we've been told. Doesn't sovereignty > > trump all? Are you telling me that ICANN or other parties can dictate to > > a country how their ccTLD may be used? Because this is not as I > > understood it. > > ICANN doesn't dictate to "a country" how their ccTLD may be used. We are > saying we only approve delegation and redelegation requests to meet a number > of criteria. We do not tell a country "you must have XYZ run your TLD", > however we may tell XYZ if they apply for a delegation that "your request > for delegation is deficient in the following ways..." > > The essence of our evaluation is what is in the interests of the local > Internet community. I think Antony covered it well in his posts, but > sometimes a government's desire for a transfer does not appropriately > reflect the wishes of the community, and is not a stable path forward. In my > time at ICANN certainly there have been requests of this nature have not > been endorsed by ICANN. > > I think its worth highlighting we are talking about corner cases here. The > majority of ccTLD operators are widely supported and there is no argument > between the community and the government. > > > And where is the multi-stakeholder participation when one person signs a > > document transferring ccTLD management to a private foreign company? > > When a ccTLD is delegated, the entity it is delegated to is the "sponsor" or > "trustee". They do not have the right to wholly on-transfer their > responsibility, but they can outsource or otherwise grant operational rights > to other entities. We still consider this trustee the responsible party even > if they have engaged other parties to do technical operations or other > aspects of the domain's operation. > > The situation I am most familiar with is .au, where in the past I was a > director of "auDA" that is basically like a local version of ICANN for > operating the .au domain. It has a community elected board and sets naming > policy for .au. auDA itself doesn't run the registry operations, each four > years it holds a tender and currently the registry operator is a company > called Ausregistry. This doesn't mean that auDA has transferred .au to > Ausregistry. Further, if auDA decided to use Afilias or VeriSign as its > registry operator, I don't think it would be fair to characterise that as > them transferring ccTLD management to a private company. > > kim

2 1

The October NARALO call and Canadian Thanksgiving
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

I guess, when we planned that the NARALO conference calls would take place the second Monday of the month, we didn't realise that the October meeting would ALWAYS conflict with Canada's Thanksgiving Day. Does anyone have a problem with having this month's call on the 19th, one week later? That is just days before the Seoul meeting and probably good timing. And... going forward ... can we just make this permanent, that it's the 2nd Monday of the month except for October, where it's the third Monday? - Evan

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Civic Representation in ICANN: WhatNow? - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09
by Beau Brendler Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Yes, I meant the current re-organization scheme. No intent on my part to try to take credit for others' work -- and, in fact, I am very glad you told me this idea has been around since 2001. -----Original Message----- >From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> >Sent: Oct 5, 2009 6:29 AM >To: Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Civic Representation in ICANN: WhatNow? - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09 > >Well, I can't speak for Beau, but I would imagine what he meant is >that this was the intitial proposal under the current re-organization >scheme. > >Joly > > > >On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 ><namecritic(a)blogs.pn> wrote: >> Uh, Beau, you wrote; "It was not necessarily a recent proposal to establish >> a consumer constituency -- I wrote the initial proposal back in February, I >> think." >> >> It's been proposed since 2001. So, no it isn't necessarily a recent >> proposal, nor did you originally write one. Originally, it was proposed by >> several people over the years. >> >> Chris McElroy >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beau Brendler" >> <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >> To: "Joly MacFie" <joly(a)punkcast.com>; "At-Large Worldwide" >> <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" >> <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Civic Representation in ICANN: WhatNow? >> - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09 >> >> >>> A couple of minor corrections: >>> >>> The biographical stuff is accurate but incomplete, in that I left >>> Consumers Union at the end of May, after eight years, and am now at NARSAD, >>> the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression. I am no >>> longer with a consumer organization, though I do continue in consumer >>> journalism, writing a column for AOL's Money and Finance section >>> (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/bloggers/beau-brendler/) It was not >>> necessarily a recent proposal to establish a consumer constituency -- I >>> wrote the initial proposal back in February, I think. It's since been >>> heavily rewritten and re-submitted to recast some presuppositions and >>> correct some inaccuracies. >>> >>> As for this paragraph: >>> However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular >>>> >>>> axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent >>>> their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with >>>> them. >>> >>> I'm not entirely sure what that means. But the proposal for the consumer >>> constituency grew out of issues related to ALAC, which, at the time, was not >>> really set up to accomodate the interests of consumer groups. >>> >>> And those three seats are no longer placeholders, the board has chosen >>> candidates for them. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> >>>> Sent: Oct 2, 2009 10:41 PM >>>> To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss >>>> <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? - ISOC-NY >>>> Forum @ NYU 10/8/09 >>>> >>>> *** Please feel free to email me off list with any egregious mistakes >>>> in my description below. Joly(a)punkcast.com *** >>>> >>>> >>>> Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? >>>> >>>> What: An ISOC-NY Forum >>>> When: Thurs Oct 8 2009 – 6:45pm – 8:45pm >>>> Where: Warren Weaver Hall NYU >>>> 251 Mercer St Rm 317 >>>> New York NY 10012 >>>> http://cs.nyu.edu/web/Location/directions.html >>>> Who: Dr Milton Mueller; Beau Brendler; Danny Younger >>>> >>>> Admission free: RSVP president(a)isoc-ny.org >>>> >>>> On Oct 1 2009 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>> (ICANN) entered a new era as its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with >>>> the US Government expired and it became a truly independent global >>>> organization. In this forum we will examine the processes, currently >>>> in flux, of how we the people will get to participate in this new >>>> paradigm. >>>> >>>> The newly coined Articles of Commitment (AoC) state that ICANN will >>>> “operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with >>>> input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events >>>> act.” >>>> >>>> Currently there are two mechanisms by which the Internet using public >>>> are represented at ICANN. The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC >>>> aka NonComm) in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and >>>> the At-Large organization.. >>>> >>>> The At-Large Advisory Council was formed, with official liaison >>>> status, as an interim measure in 2003 after the ICANN board had >>>> dispensed with direct public elections. In 2007 with the establishment >>>> of regional At-Large Organizations (ALO’s). the ALAC became permanent. >>>> ALO membership is open to all individuals and organizations can apply >>>> to become an At-Large Structure (ALS). In 2009 it was agreed that an >>>> ICANN board seat be allotted to the At-Large. >>>> >>>> The GNSO Council is ICANN’s primary body responsible for policy >>>> recommendations for generic top level domains. The board balances the >>>> GNSO recommendations with input from the Government Advisory Committee >>>> (GAC) and liaisons from various technical groups, plus At Large (soon >>>> to be seated, as mentioned) plus the ICANN Ombudsman. >>>> >>>> Other constituencies in are, Business/Commercial, Registries, ISPs, >>>> and Intellectual Property. The NCUC, formerly the Noncommercial Domain >>>> Holders Constituency, has thus been, since ICANN’s inception, the sole >>>> voice of non-commercial users on the GNSO Council. As such it has >>>> taken to representing regular internet users’ concerns as well as >>>> those of registrants. >>>> >>>> Earlier this year ICANN proposed another re-organization, replacing >>>> the GNSO constituencies with two ‘houses’ – Contracted and >>>> Non-contracted, each of which was further divided into two stakeholder >>>> groups. Contracted has Registries and Registrars; Non-Contracted has >>>> Commercial (CSG) and Noncommercial (NCSG). 12 seats on the GNSO >>>> Council would be split thus: CSG 6; NCSG 6; Registries 3; Registrars >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> The former ISP, Business, and IP constituencies are to be folded into >>>> the CSG and presumably take two seats each. >>>> >>>> On the NCSG front: 3 seats have been alloted to the NCUC and 3 >>>> placeholders have been selected by the ICANN Structural Improvement >>>> Committee. >>>> >>>> The NCUC has argued against the plan insisting that it will only serve >>>> to further balkanize the GNSO process, and that practical policymaking >>>> would be better served by ad-hoc working groups than the proposed >>>> legislative approach. >>>> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-pro… >>>> >>>> However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular >>>> axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent >>>> their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with >>>> them. >>>> >>>> The three speakers we are bringing together on Oct 8 represent widely >>>> differing views on how it is best to proceed in the public interest. >>>> It is sure to be a very lively and interesting discussion. >>>> >>>> We will webcast and there will be an opportunity for remote >>>> participation via a chatroom. >>>> >>>> More info: http://isoc-ny.org/?p=886 >>>> >>>> Speakers: >>>> >>>> Dr. Milton Mueller >>>> >>>> Milton Mueller is a Professor and Director of the Telecommunications >>>> Network Management Program at the Syracuse University School of >>>> Information Studies. He is the author of ‘Ruling the Root: Internet >>>> Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace’ (MIT Press, 2002) – the >>>> definitive account of early Internet governance debates. Mueller was a >>>> co-founder of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and was >>>> chair of NCUC from 2003-2005. >>>> >>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html >>>> >>>> Beau Brendler: >>>> >>>> Beau Brendler is a journalist and consumer activist who takes a >>>> particular interest in Internet affairs. He was a founder and >>>> editorial director of ABCNews.com before moving to a fulltime position >>>> at the Consumers Union in 2001 where he launched Consumer WebWatch . >>>> He is an active member of the ICANN Community and serves on the >>>> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) . He has recently proposed the >>>> establishment of a Consumer Constituency within the Generic Names >>>> Supporting Organization (GNSO). >>>> >>>> Danny Younger: >>>> >>>> Danny Younger has been involved with ICANN since at least 2001 >>>> including active participation on the General Assembly mailing list. >>>> He represented ISOC-NY in the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) >>>> from 2004-2007. He has for some time advocated for a single >>>> Registrants constituency within the GNSO. >>>> >>>> More info: >>>> ICANN Structure: http://www.icann.org/en/structure/ >>>> NonCommercial Users Constituency: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>>> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.icann.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast >>>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> 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 >>>> ------ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast >WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >_______________________________________________ >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

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Civic Representation in ICANN: WhatNow? - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09
by Joly MacFie Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Well, I can't speak for Beau, but I would imagine what he meant is that this was the intitial proposal under the current re-organization scheme. Joly On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> wrote: > Uh, Beau, you wrote; "It was not necessarily a recent proposal to establish > a consumer constituency -- I wrote the initial proposal back in February, I > think." > > It's been proposed since 2001. So, no it isn't necessarily a recent > proposal, nor did you originally write one. Originally, it was proposed by > several people over the years. > > Chris McElroy > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beau Brendler" > <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > To: "Joly MacFie" <joly(a)punkcast.com>; "At-Large Worldwide" > <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Civic Representation in ICANN: WhatNow? > - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09 > > >> A couple of minor corrections: >> >> The biographical stuff is accurate but incomplete, in that I left >> Consumers Union at the end of May, after eight years, and am now at NARSAD, >> the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression. I am no >> longer with a consumer organization, though I do continue in consumer >> journalism, writing a column for AOL's Money and Finance section >> (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/bloggers/beau-brendler/) It was not >> necessarily a recent proposal to establish a consumer constituency -- I >> wrote the initial proposal back in February, I think. It's since been >> heavily rewritten and re-submitted to recast some presuppositions and >> correct some inaccuracies. >> >> As for this paragraph: >> However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular >>> >>> axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent >>> their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with >>> them. >> >> I'm not entirely sure what that means. But the proposal for the consumer >> constituency grew out of issues related to ALAC, which, at the time, was not >> really set up to accomodate the interests of consumer groups. >> >> And those three seats are no longer placeholders, the board has chosen >> candidates for them. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> >>> Sent: Oct 2, 2009 10:41 PM >>> To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss >>> <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? - ISOC-NY >>> Forum @ NYU 10/8/09 >>> >>> *** Please feel free to email me off list with any egregious mistakes >>> in my description below. Joly(a)punkcast.com *** >>> >>> >>> Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? >>> >>> What: An ISOC-NY Forum >>> When: Thurs Oct 8 2009 – 6:45pm – 8:45pm >>> Where: Warren Weaver Hall NYU >>> 251 Mercer St Rm 317 >>> New York NY 10012 >>> http://cs.nyu.edu/web/Location/directions.html >>> Who: Dr Milton Mueller; Beau Brendler; Danny Younger >>> >>> Admission free: RSVP president(a)isoc-ny.org >>> >>> On Oct 1 2009 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>> (ICANN) entered a new era as its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with >>> the US Government expired and it became a truly independent global >>> organization. In this forum we will examine the processes, currently >>> in flux, of how we the people will get to participate in this new >>> paradigm. >>> >>> The newly coined Articles of Commitment (AoC) state that ICANN will >>> “operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with >>> input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events >>> act.” >>> >>> Currently there are two mechanisms by which the Internet using public >>> are represented at ICANN. The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC >>> aka NonComm) in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and >>> the At-Large organization.. >>> >>> The At-Large Advisory Council was formed, with official liaison >>> status, as an interim measure in 2003 after the ICANN board had >>> dispensed with direct public elections. In 2007 with the establishment >>> of regional At-Large Organizations (ALO’s). the ALAC became permanent. >>> ALO membership is open to all individuals and organizations can apply >>> to become an At-Large Structure (ALS). In 2009 it was agreed that an >>> ICANN board seat be allotted to the At-Large. >>> >>> The GNSO Council is ICANN’s primary body responsible for policy >>> recommendations for generic top level domains. The board balances the >>> GNSO recommendations with input from the Government Advisory Committee >>> (GAC) and liaisons from various technical groups, plus At Large (soon >>> to be seated, as mentioned) plus the ICANN Ombudsman. >>> >>> Other constituencies in are, Business/Commercial, Registries, ISPs, >>> and Intellectual Property. The NCUC, formerly the Noncommercial Domain >>> Holders Constituency, has thus been, since ICANN’s inception, the sole >>> voice of non-commercial users on the GNSO Council. As such it has >>> taken to representing regular internet users’ concerns as well as >>> those of registrants. >>> >>> Earlier this year ICANN proposed another re-organization, replacing >>> the GNSO constituencies with two ‘houses’ – Contracted and >>> Non-contracted, each of which was further divided into two stakeholder >>> groups. Contracted has Registries and Registrars; Non-Contracted has >>> Commercial (CSG) and Noncommercial (NCSG). 12 seats on the GNSO >>> Council would be split thus: CSG 6; NCSG 6; Registries 3; Registrars >>> 3. >>> >>> The former ISP, Business, and IP constituencies are to be folded into >>> the CSG and presumably take two seats each. >>> >>> On the NCSG front: 3 seats have been alloted to the NCUC and 3 >>> placeholders have been selected by the ICANN Structural Improvement >>> Committee. >>> >>> The NCUC has argued against the plan insisting that it will only serve >>> to further balkanize the GNSO process, and that practical policymaking >>> would be better served by ad-hoc working groups than the proposed >>> legislative approach. >>> >>> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-pro… >>> >>> However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular >>> axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent >>> their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with >>> them. >>> >>> The three speakers we are bringing together on Oct 8 represent widely >>> differing views on how it is best to proceed in the public interest. >>> It is sure to be a very lively and interesting discussion. >>> >>> We will webcast and there will be an opportunity for remote >>> participation via a chatroom. >>> >>> More info: http://isoc-ny.org/?p=886 >>> >>> Speakers: >>> >>> Dr. Milton Mueller >>> >>> Milton Mueller is a Professor and Director of the Telecommunications >>> Network Management Program at the Syracuse University School of >>> Information Studies. He is the author of ‘Ruling the Root: Internet >>> Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace’ (MIT Press, 2002) – the >>> definitive account of early Internet governance debates. Mueller was a >>> co-founder of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and was >>> chair of NCUC from 2003-2005. >>> >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html >>> >>> Beau Brendler: >>> >>> Beau Brendler is a journalist and consumer activist who takes a >>> particular interest in Internet affairs. He was a founder and >>> editorial director of ABCNews.com before moving to a fulltime position >>> at the Consumers Union in 2001 where he launched Consumer WebWatch . >>> He is an active member of the ICANN Community and serves on the >>> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) . He has recently proposed the >>> establishment of a Consumer Constituency within the Generic Names >>> Supporting Organization (GNSO). >>> >>> Danny Younger: >>> >>> Danny Younger has been involved with ICANN since at least 2001 >>> including active participation on the General Assembly mailing list. >>> He represented ISOC-NY in the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) >>> from 2004-2007. He has for some time advocated for a single >>> Registrants constituency within the GNSO. >>> >>> More info: >>> ICANN Structure: http://www.icann.org/en/structure/ >>> NonCommercial Users Constituency: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ >>> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.icann.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast >>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ------ >>> 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 >>> ------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

It may have the blessing of the Moldovan Gov't but some of it's citizens may not appreciate the transfer especially if it is being misused and they get nothing for it and don't have access to it. If someone sold my birthright I wouldn't be happy. Yes, each ccTLD gov't can do what they want it, but when goes to the .LA root site and can't even discern the original intent of the ccTLD, hasn't it lost its meaning? I'm of the belief that the ccTLDs are best used when used by their own people and controlled by their own governments, you disagree? I'm trying to start with a full accounting of the ccTLD ownership and accountability. I realize there are many people out there who don't want to discuss the issue. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> > Date: Sun, October 04, 2009 2:29 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > It's a little difficult to know where to start with Mr. Bruen's list > -- it's wrong in several significant ways. > > .MD has been run by a group blessed by the Moldovan Gov't since 2003. http://iana.org/reports/2003/md-report-22oct03.html > > .LA, while sold as "Los Angeles" (not very successfully) is run by > Laotian Gov't. Presumably, they can do what they want with it, > including selling it to Angelinos. http://iana.org/domains/root/db/la.html > > Assuming that a secondary DNS server located in the U.S. doesn't mean > that the TLD is "run from" the U.S., then just about all of the names > on this list are wrong. Some on the list have no connection at all > to the U.S. -- .AL - Albania, the first on the list, is an example. > > On the other hand, if "run from" means that the registry operations > are fully or partially located in the U.S., then there are some > missing. Curiously, these missing ones have a theme -- they are run > by large registry incumbents: > > -- The ccTLDs for whom Afilias provides registry services are missing > (e.g., .MN, .VC) -- see http://www.afilias-grs.info/public/homepage > -- The ccTLDs for whom Neustar provides registry services are missing > (e.g., .US, .CO). > -- The ccTLDs for whom VeriSign provices registry services are missing > (e.g., .TV, .CC). > > Even the provision of registry services by these U.S.-based companies > does not mean that they are "run" from the U.S. It just means that a > piece of technical infrastructure has been outsourced to them. > > Mr. Bruen's list is almost a mirror image of the reality. There is no > U.S. involvement in .CU (Cuba). There is no U.S. involvement in .LI > (Liechtenstein). Or .NA (Namibia). The list goes on and on. This > can be verified by going through the IANA database, looking at who the > contacts are where the nameservers are. http://iana.org/domains/root/db/ > > Antony Van Couvering > > > > On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > Thanks Danny, > > > > > > There are many ccTLDs not directly controlled by the actual country, > > some by choice, but maybe not if their citizens knew the whole story. > > > > Among the more egregious examples are Moldova (.MD) which is run by > > someone in New Jersey and used to market "medical professional" sites > > and Laos (.LA) which is used as the TLD for "Los Angeles", go the the > > .LA root site and there is nothing about Laos rather traffic and > > weather > > for Los Angeles. > > > > > > List of ccTLDs completely or partly run from the U.S.: > > > > Albania (.al) > > Andorra (.ad) > > Antarctica (.aq) > > Armenia (.am) > > Azerbaijan (.az) > > Bahamas (.bs) > > Botswana (.bw) > > Canada (.ca) > > Catalonia (.cat) > > Central African Republic (.cf) > > Chile (.cl) > > Christmas Island (.cx) > > Costa Rica (.cr) > > Cuba (.cu) > > Cyprus (.cy) > > East Timor(.tl) > > Egypt (.eg) > > Fiji (.fj) > > Ghana (.gh) > > Guinea (.gn) > > Guyana (.gy) > > Haiti (.ht) > > Heard Island and McDonald Islands (.hm) > > Hong Kong (.hk) > > Iceland (.is) > > Israel (.il) > > Kiribati (.ki) > > Lebanon (.lb) > > Lesotho (.ls) > > Lesotho (.ls) > > Liberia (.lr) > > Liechtenstein (.li) > > Malawi (.mw) > > Maldives (.mv) > > Mali (.ml) > > Malta (.mt) > > Mauritius (.mu) > > Moldova (.md) > > Montserrat (.ms) > > Namibia (.na) > > Nauru (.nr) > > Nepal (.np) > > Netherlands (.nl) > > Nigeria (.ng) > > Palestine (.ps) > > Philippines (.ph) > > Pitcairn Islands (.pn) > > Portugal (.pt) > > Puerto Rico (.pr) > > Saudi Arabia (.sa) > > Serbia (.rs) > > Solomon Islands (.sb) > > South Africa (.za) > > South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (.gs) > > Sri Lanka (.lk) > > Swaziland (.sz) > > Switzerland (.ch) > > Tanzania (.tz) > > Thailand (.th) > > Trinidad and Tobago (.tt) > > Tunisia (.tn) > > Ukraine (.ua) > > United Arab Emirates (.ae) > > Uruguay (.uy) > > Venezuela (.ve) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > >> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > >> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 7:15 am > >> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> > >> [excerpted from the governance list] > >> > >> LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation > >> > >> To the international community > >> > >> By this note, we would like to inform the international community > >> about > >> the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by RDS-HN, > >> associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about this > >> situation. > >> > >> The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must hand > >> over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of the > >> Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that > >> "CONATEL > >> controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP > >> directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to > >> take > >> the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and IP > >> addresses can be executed through from other public or private > >> institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the > >> corresponding > >> regulations will be issued." > >> > >> Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national > >> authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, > >> CONATEL > >> has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. > >> Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has been > >> managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management > >> immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of Article > >> 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications > >> Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately > >> suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of new > >> domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of > >> domains .HN > >> and records, that the institution have been conferred, to CONATEL." > >> > >> The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development > >> Network) > >> http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since > >> April > >> 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, in > >> July > >> 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN > >> (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf) which > >> explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, RDS is > >> also a leading civil society organization that facilitates > >> connectivity > >> to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the > >> community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, RDS > >> is > >> being recognized as a pioneer in the region. > >> > >> The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally > >> accepted > >> and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because of > >> the > >> stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD work, > >> RDS > >> is due to its local and international community on the Internet. > >> > >> In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out > >> CONATEL > >> is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of the > >> Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the > >> relationship > >> that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and is > >> based on existing contractual agreements and relationships. > >> > >> LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that have > >> unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to take > >> in a > >> sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it > >> will be > >> detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which > >> primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet > >> resources. > >> > >> LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily > >> seeks > >> to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the correct > >> running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail between > >> two sides in order to solve this delicate situation. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> Council of LACTLD > >> Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> 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 > > ------ > > > ------ > 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 > ------

4 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 4, 2009

Oct. 4, 2009

Regardless of whether people "want" to discuss the issue, my understanding is that ICANN has little jurisdiction over what a country can do with a properly delegated ccTLD, short of taking it out of the root if Internet stability is impacted. Where ICANN does have non-stability-related jurisdiction, it is limited to those ccTLDs that choose to be members of the ccNSO, and even for these there are escape clauses - see Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws. Would we have set up the rules differently if we were starting the Internet all over again? Perhaps. But that is the case for MANY things, some of them far more onerous than a ccTLD being marketed as a gTLD. And I should point out that although .TV was transformed into an de facto gTLD years ago, .ME is quite recent, and I am not sure it is up to us to tell the government or people of Montenegro what is best for them. I suggest that we stay focused on issues that ICANN has some control over. There is more than enough to keep us busy. Alan At 04/10/2009 04:22 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: >It may have the blessing of the Moldovan Gov't but some of it's citizens >may not appreciate the transfer especially if it is being misused and >they get nothing for it and don't have access to it. If someone sold my >birthright I wouldn't be happy. > >Yes, each ccTLD gov't can do what they want it, but when goes to the .LA >root site and can't even discern the original intent of the ccTLD, >hasn't it lost its meaning? I'm of the belief that the ccTLDs are best >used when used by their own people and controlled by their own >governments, you disagree? > >I'm trying to start with a full accounting of the ccTLD ownership and >accountability. I realize there are many people out there who don't want >to discuss the issue.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Zaid Ali Oct. 4, 2009

Oct. 4, 2009

Garth, I am with you on this one and I am glad you raised this topic as well as the need for accountability. As someone who worked in the south pacific for many years and seen .tv taken away from the people of Tuvalu (greed by local government and foreign interests) I agree that ccTLDs are best used by their own people. The problem in the south pacific 10 years ago was that the internet was very young and most people did not know the value of a ccTLD and how it can be used for economic benefit as well as national identity. During my last visit to the south pacific and talking with people at the local univeristy I found that the younger generation now understand the importance and value of ccTLD's and also appalled at how their ccTLD had been robbed. A country like Tuvalu which is small could only negotiate a $50M deal for the .tv domain but I don't think the people of Tuvalu saw this money helping build their infrastructure. I support your efforts in full accounting of ccTLD ownership and accountability. ccTLD's should be guarded like currency of a nation. Zaid Ali President, Internet Society San Francisco Bay chapter www.sfbayisoc.org zaid(a)sfbayisoc.org ----- "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > It may have the blessing of the Moldovan Gov't but some of it's > citizens > may not appreciate the transfer especially if it is being misused and > they get nothing for it and don't have access to it. If someone sold > my > birthright I wouldn't be happy. > > Yes, each ccTLD gov't can do what they want it, but when goes to the > .LA > root site and can't even discern the original intent of the ccTLD, > hasn't it lost its meaning? I'm of the belief that the ccTLDs are best > used when used by their own people and controlled by their own > governments, you disagree? > > I'm trying to start with a full accounting of the ccTLD ownership and > accountability. I realize there are many people out there who don't > want > to discuss the issue. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> > > Date: Sun, October 04, 2009 2:29 pm > > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > > > It's a little difficult to know where to start with Mr. Bruen's list > > -- it's wrong in several significant ways. > > > > .MD has been run by a group blessed by the Moldovan Gov't since > 2003. http://iana.org/reports/2003/md-report-22oct03.html > > > > .LA, while sold as "Los Angeles" (not very successfully) is run by > > Laotian Gov't. Presumably, they can do what they want with it, > > including selling it to Angelinos. > http://iana.org/domains/root/db/la.html > > > > Assuming that a secondary DNS server located in the U.S. doesn't > mean > > that the TLD is "run from" the U.S., then just about all of the > names > > on this list are wrong. Some on the list have no connection at all > > to the U.S. -- .AL - Albania, the first on the list, is an example. > > > > On the other hand, if "run from" means that the registry operations > > are fully or partially located in the U.S., then there are some > > missing. Curiously, these missing ones have a theme -- they are > run > > by large registry incumbents: > > > > -- The ccTLDs for whom Afilias provides registry services are > missing > > (e.g., .MN, .VC) -- see http://www.afilias-grs.info/public/homepage > > -- The ccTLDs for whom Neustar provides registry services are > missing > > (e.g., .US, .CO). > > -- The ccTLDs for whom VeriSign provices registry services are > missing > > (e.g., .TV, .CC). > > > > Even the provision of registry services by these U.S.-based > companies > > does not mean that they are "run" from the U.S. It just means that > a > > piece of technical infrastructure has been outsourced to them. > > > > Mr. Bruen's list is almost a mirror image of the reality. There is > no > > U.S. involvement in .CU (Cuba). There is no U.S. involvement in .LI > > (Liechtenstein). Or .NA (Namibia). The list goes on and on. > This > > can be verified by going through the IANA database, looking at who > the > > contacts are where the nameservers are. > http://iana.org/domains/root/db/ > > > > Antony Van Couvering > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > > > Thanks Danny, > > > > > > > > > There are many ccTLDs not directly controlled by the actual > country, > > > some by choice, but maybe not if their citizens knew the whole > story. > > > > > > Among the more egregious examples are Moldova (.MD) which is run > by > > > someone in New Jersey and used to market "medical professional" > sites > > > and Laos (.LA) which is used as the TLD for "Los Angeles", go the > the > > > .LA root site and there is nothing about Laos rather traffic and > > > weather > > > for Los Angeles. > > > > > > > > > List of ccTLDs completely or partly run from the U.S.: > > > > > > Albania (.al) > > > Andorra (.ad) > > > Antarctica (.aq) > > > Armenia (.am) > > > Azerbaijan (.az) > > > Bahamas (.bs) > > > Botswana (.bw) > > > Canada (.ca) > > > Catalonia (.cat) > > > Central African Republic (.cf) > > > Chile (.cl) > > > Christmas Island (.cx) > > > Costa Rica (.cr) > > > Cuba (.cu) > > > Cyprus (.cy) > > > East Timor(.tl) > > > Egypt (.eg) > > > Fiji (.fj) > > > Ghana (.gh) > > > Guinea (.gn) > > > Guyana (.gy) > > > Haiti (.ht) > > > Heard Island and McDonald Islands (.hm) > > > Hong Kong (.hk) > > > Iceland (.is) > > > Israel (.il) > > > Kiribati (.ki) > > > Lebanon (.lb) > > > Lesotho (.ls) > > > Lesotho (.ls) > > > Liberia (.lr) > > > Liechtenstein (.li) > > > Malawi (.mw) > > > Maldives (.mv) > > > Mali (.ml) > > > Malta (.mt) > > > Mauritius (.mu) > > > Moldova (.md) > > > Montserrat (.ms) > > > Namibia (.na) > > > Nauru (.nr) > > > Nepal (.np) > > > Netherlands (.nl) > > > Nigeria (.ng) > > > Palestine (.ps) > > > Philippines (.ph) > > > Pitcairn Islands (.pn) > > > Portugal (.pt) > > > Puerto Rico (.pr) > > > Saudi Arabia (.sa) > > > Serbia (.rs) > > > Solomon Islands (.sb) > > > South Africa (.za) > > > South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (.gs) > > > Sri Lanka (.lk) > > > Swaziland (.sz) > > > Switzerland (.ch) > > > Tanzania (.tz) > > > Thailand (.th) > > > Trinidad and Tobago (.tt) > > > Tunisia (.tn) > > > Ukraine (.ua) > > > United Arab Emirates (.ae) > > > Uruguay (.uy) > > > Venezuela (.ve) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > > >> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > > >> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 7:15 am > > >> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > >> > > >> [excerpted from the governance list] > > >> > > >> LACTLD Statement on ccTLD. HN situation > > >> > > >> To the international community > > >> > > >> By this note, we would like to inform the international community > > >> about > > >> the current situation in the ccTLD .HN, which is managed by > RDS-HN, > > >> associated member of LACTLD , organization that informs us about > this > > >> situation. > > >> > > >> The current Honduran government has informed RDS-HN that it must > hand > > >> over the ccTLD operation due to Article 79B of the Reglament of > the > > >> Telecommunications Act (of the year 2002). This rule says that > > >> "CONATEL > > >> controls the regulation and administration of the domains and IP > > >> directions within the national territory. CONATEL will be able to > > >> take > > >> the necessary measures so that the administration of domains and > IP > > >> addresses can be executed through from other public or private > > >> institutions, for which agreements will be signed and the > > >> corresponding > > >> regulations will be issued." > > >> > > >> Last Friday, and based in the above-mentioned article, national > > >> authorities arrived at the ccTLD. hn office stating: "Until now, > > >> CONATEL > > >> has not signed any agreement with any public or private entity. > > >> Therefore it is necessary to order the institution, which has > been > > >> managing and delegating domains. HN, to suspend the management > > >> immediately, given that it develops outside the provisions of > Article > > >> 79B of the Reglament of the Framework Law for Telecommunications > > >> Sector". In the same way, they order ccTLD .HN "1. To immediately > > >> suspend all activities related to registration and delegation of > new > > >> domain names under the domain .HN, and 2. To hand a list of > > >> domains .HN > > >> and records, that the institution have been conferred, to > CONATEL." > > >> > > >> The Red de Desarrollo Sostenible - RDS (Sustainable Development > > >> Network) > > >> http://www.rds.org.hn maintains the operation of ccTLD. hn since > > >> April > > >> 1993, date when this organization received this delegation and, > in > > >> July > > >> 2006, signed an Accountability Framework with ICANN > > >> (http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/hn/hn-icann-af-20jul06.pdf) > which > > >> explicitly recognizes that relationship and work. Furthermore, > RDS is > > >> also a leading civil society organization that facilitates > > >> connectivity > > >> to Honduras as well as provides various tools and services to the > > >> community of Honduras and Central America and, for this reason, > RDS > > >> is > > >> being recognized as a pioneer in the region. > > >> > > >> The management and operation of the DNS follow internationally > > >> accepted > > >> and recognized processes, primarily based on RFC 1591 . Because > of > > >> the > > >> stability importance of the Internet global system and ccTLD > work, > > >> RDS > > >> is due to its local and international community on the Internet. > > >> > > >> In addition, we indicate that the action that tries to carry out > > >> CONATEL > > >> is against of the constitutional guarantees and the guarantees of > the > > >> Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Therefore, it violates the > > >> relationship > > >> that has been conducted peacefully and technically efficient and > is > > >> based on existing contractual agreements and relationships. > > >> > > >> LACTLD expresses its strong concern regarding the events that > have > > >> unfolded in the request made by the Government of Honduras to > take > > >> in a > > >> sudden and abrupt way the operation .HN due to the fact that it > > >> will be > > >> detrimental to the users of domain name system in Honduras which > > >> primarily require stability for the adequate access of Internet > > >> resources. > > >> > > >> LACTLD is committed with its partners and members, and primarily > > >> seeks > > >> to maintain the stability of the Domain Name System for the > correct > > >> running of the Internet. We hope that the wisdom will prevail > between > > >> two sides in order to solve this delicate situation. > > >> > > >> Sincerely, > > >> > > >> Council of LACTLD > > >> Latin American and Caribbean ccTLD Association > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ------ > > >> 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 > > > ------ > > > > > > ------ > > 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