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

[offtopic] The ultimate geek gift
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 28, 2009

Nov. 28, 2009

As we bid goodbye to Black Friday (which this year crept into Canada, even though our Thanksgiving was a month ago), those of you who did not get everything on your lists may want to consider buying online. For the geek you have to buy for, here's one suggestion -- novel, compact, and very energy efficient: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/c208/ Have a good holiday weekend. Hope the family doesn't stress you too much. - Evan

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO Comments re NomCom Review WG
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 24, 2009

Nov. 24, 2009

2009/11/23 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Sorry for not focusing on this earlier (trying to juggle too many balls at > the moment). > > I would add one sentence at the end of the paragraph starting with " > > The current NomCom includes...": > > > Moreover, the decrease in ALAC NomCom members is predicated by the > appointment of one At-Large voting Director, while the gNSO will have an > estimated six members (assuming 1 per contracted party SG and 2 per > non-contracted party SG) despite it having TWO voting Directors. > I'm OK withat that. Anything else? Is it ready for submission to ALAC for consideration, with Alan's addition? - Evan

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO Comments re NomCom Review WG
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 23, 2009

Nov. 23, 2009

Sorry for not focusing on this earlier (trying to juggle too many balls at the moment). I would add one sentence at the end of the paragraph starting with "The current NomCom includes...": Moreover, the decrease in ALAC NomCom members is predicated by the appointment of one At-Large voting Director, while the gNSO will have an estimated six members (assuming 1 per contracted party SG and 2 per non-contracted party SG) despite it having TWO voting Directors. Alan At 23/11/2009 11:35 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Hello everyone, It's been a week since Wendy >posted her excellent comments on the proposed >NomComm changes. I haven't seen any contrary >comments so far. I'm quite happy with them >comments (that were made subsequent to a >conversation in last week's teleconference) and >am prepared to change this from a "draft" >statement to a full one endorsed by NARALO, to >be sent to ALAC for further endorsement at its >meeting tomorrow. If there are any disagreements >with this process or with Wendy's (now NARALO's) >statement, please make them quickly. Thanks so >much Wendy! Your comments well reflect the >sentiment from the meeting and express the >salient points very well. - Evan 2009/11/17 >Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > At >yesterday's meeting, I volunteered to write up >NARALO's response to > the NomCom Review >Finalization Working Group, > ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009>, >with > particular concern regarding its >suggestion to reduce ALAC's > representatives >from 5 to 3. Here are my draft comments, for > >consideration by NARALO and forwarding, at your >choice, to ALAC. > > --Wendy > > **DRAFT >COMMENTS** > > The NomCom Review Finalization >Working Group has requested comments on > its >Recommendation 10, regarding the nominating >committee's size and > composition. > ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009>, > > < > >http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-draft-… > > >. > The [North American Regional At-Large >Organization / > At-Large Advisory Committee] >recommend that the NomCom retain the > current >five voting delegates from ALAC. > > The current >NomCom includes five members appointed by ALAC, >one from > each geographic region, along with 7 >from GNSO constituencies, and 5 > from other SOs >and technical advisory groups. The WG's >strawman > proposal reduces the ALAC >representatives to 3, rotating among the > >regions (and thus ensuring that two regions are >unrepresented through > this means), while >preserving nearly all of the other >delegations. > > NARALO/ALAC believe that this >reduction in ALAC representation is unwise > >from the standpoints of geographic diversity, >the broad range of ICANN > issues beyond generic >names, and representation of the at-large > >Internet-using public. > > * ALAC's >representatives assure the NomCom a degree of >geographic > diversity that no other selection >means provides. Outreach to potential > recruits >and assessment of regionally relevant >qualifications are > important responsibilities >of the NomCom. ALAC's five regionally > diverse >appointments (Bylaws XI.2.4.e) ensure that the >NomCom will have > at least one member from each >of ICANN's geographic regions. > > * ALAC's >remit is wider than that of the GNSO >constituencies, whose > selection forms the >largest part of the NomCom. ALAC's delegates to >the > NomCom may have expertise or mandates >reaching beyond the generic names > into the >other areas of ICANN focus (addressing, ccTLDs), >and help to > broaden the search and selection >to include candidates with expertise in > those >areas. > > * The ALAC delegates to the NomCom >fulfill part of ICANN's initial > promise to >represent the individual Internet user. The >NomCom is > currently the most democratic means >of selection within ICANN -- anyone > can apply >for an appointment through NomCom, and all >applicants are > considered by a diverse >multistakeholder group. Individual Internet > >users, who were initially promised half the >voting directors on the > Board, but now have >fewer than other SOs and ACs, should be given > >substantial voice in this selection >channel. Even when ALAC is granted > one voting >director, as the Board has agreed in principle, >though we > cannot know how long that process >will take, that single vote on the > Board does >not substitute for NomCom representation. The WG >recognizes > that Board members' fiduciary >duties to the organization supersede any > >membership or allegiance to an originating >body. While members of the > NomCom are not >free to consult on specific nominees with their >selecting > organization, they may be given more >guidance. As the voices of > individual >Internet users vary, a selection of five helps >to bring the > at-large's diversity of >viewpoints into the NomCom's selection >process. > > We believe that the NomCom's >current size is closer to optimal than a > >smaller group would be, but if the WG is looking >for cuts, it could > eliminate the double >representation of the Business Constituency, >and > select GNSO representatives from >Stakeholder Groups rather than > >Constituencies. > > > In response to the WG's >specific questions: > > How do various part of >the ICANN community value thee current size of > >the NomCom? > > NARALO/ALAC support the current >size. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." > > >â¢ To what extent does the trust that is placed >in the nominating > committee depend on direct >representation of stakeholder groups on the > >committee? > > Since we cannot see inside much >of the process, due to strongly-enforced > >confidentiality assertions, we can only judge >its inputs and outputs. > Delegating five >members from the representative of the at-large >Internet > using public gives us trust that the >inputs are representative of and > attentive to >indivduals' interests and concerns. > > What >mmechanisms might serve to ensure geographic and >other diversity > goals (gender, background ...) >within the NomCom, given that its > membership >is appointed independently by different ICANN >entities? > > The current ALAC selection assures >geographic diversity of its 5 > delegates. A >reduction in number would weaken that >contribution toward > diversity. > > What >objectives can be realistically set and what >measures adopted for > achieving gender balance >in the NomCom and through the NomCom > >processes in the Board? > > The NomCom and >its agents (search ffirms, staff) should be >given a broad > outreach mandate, and required >to pull in at least [30] female > candidates (as >compared to last year's 15). The current >gender > imbalance (only one female voting board >member among 15) is a visible > signal that the >various outreach and selection processes have >failed to > attract sufficiently diverse >qualified candidates -- and a strong > indicator >that diversity of other less visible >characteristics than > gender is likely missing >from the pool as well. > > > > > > ------ > >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

Draft NARALO Comments re NomCom Review WG
by Wendy Seltzer Nov. 23, 2009

Nov. 23, 2009

At yesterday's meeting, I volunteered to write up NARALO's response to the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group, <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009>, with particular concern regarding its suggestion to reduce ALAC's representatives from 5 to 3. Here are my draft comments, for consideration by NARALO and forwarding, at your choice, to ALAC. --Wendy **DRAFT COMMENTS** The NomCom Review Finalization Working Group has requested comments on its Recommendation 10, regarding the nominating committee's size and composition. <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009>, <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-draft-…>. The [North American Regional At-Large Organization / At-Large Advisory Committee] recommend that the NomCom retain the current five voting delegates from ALAC. The current NomCom includes five members appointed by ALAC, one from each geographic region, along with 7 from GNSO constituencies, and 5 from other SOs and technical advisory groups. The WG's strawman proposal reduces the ALAC representatives to 3, rotating among the regions (and thus ensuring that two regions are unrepresented through this means), while preserving nearly all of the other delegations. NARALO/ALAC believe that this reduction in ALAC representation is unwise from the standpoints of geographic diversity, the broad range of ICANN issues beyond generic names, and representation of the at-large Internet-using public. * ALAC's representatives assure the NomCom a degree of geographic diversity that no other selection means provides. Outreach to potential recruits and assessment of regionally relevant qualifications are important responsibilities of the NomCom. ALAC's five regionally diverse appointments (Bylaws XI.2.4.e) ensure that the NomCom will have at least one member from each of ICANN's geographic regions. * ALAC's remit is wider than that of the GNSO constituencies, whose selection forms the largest part of the NomCom. ALAC's delegates to the NomCom may have expertise or mandates reaching beyond the generic names into the other areas of ICANN focus (addressing, ccTLDs), and help to broaden the search and selection to include candidates with expertise in those areas. * The ALAC delegates to the NomCom fulfill part of ICANN's initial promise to represent the individual Internet user. The NomCom is currently the most democratic means of selection within ICANN -- anyone can apply for an appointment through NomCom, and all applicants are considered by a diverse multistakeholder group. Individual Internet users, who were initially promised half the voting directors on the Board, but now have fewer than other SOs and ACs, should be given substantial voice in this selection channel. Even when ALAC is granted one voting director, as the Board has agreed in principle, though we cannot know how long that process will take, that single vote on the Board does not substitute for NomCom representation. The WG recognizes that Board members' fiduciary duties to the organization supersede any membership or allegiance to an originating body. While members of the NomCom are not free to consult on specific nominees with their selecting organization, they may be given more guidance. As the voices of individual Internet users vary, a selection of five helps to bring the at-large's diversity of viewpoints into the NomCom's selection process. We believe that the NomCom's current size is closer to optimal than a smaller group would be, but if the WG is looking for cuts, it could eliminate the double representation of the Business Constituency, and select GNSO representatives from Stakeholder Groups rather than Constituencies. In response to the WG's specific questions: • How do various part of the ICANN community value the current size of the NomCom? NARALO/ALAC support the current size. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." • To what extent does the trust that is placed in the nominating committee depend on direct representation of stakeholder groups on the committee? Since we cannot see inside much of the process, due to strongly-enforced confidentiality assertions, we can only judge its inputs and outputs. Delegating five members from the representative of the at-large Internet using public gives us trust that the inputs are representative of and attentive to indivduals' interests and concerns. • What mechanisms might serve to ensure geographic and other diversity goals (gender, background ...) within the NomCom, given that its membership is appointed independently by different ICANN entities? The current ALAC selection assures geographic diversity of its 5 delegates. A reduction in number would weaken that contribution toward diversity. • What objectives can be realistically set and what measures adopted for achieving gender balance in the NomCom and – through the NomCom processes – in the Board? The NomCom and its agents (search firms, staff) should be given a broad outreach mandate, and required to pull in at least [30] female candidates (as compared to last year's 15). The current gender imbalance (only one female voting board member among 15) is a visible signal that the various outreach and selection processes have failed to attract sufficiently diverse qualified candidates -- and a strong indicator that diversity of other less visible characteristics than gender is likely missing from the pool as well.

4 3

FDA Targets Online Pharmacies and Providers
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

Folks, Today the FDA kicked off a week of international action against illicit online pharmacies. As part of this specific Registrars and ISPs have been issued notices regarding the ongoing problem of illegal and illicit Internet pharmacies. See: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm191330.htm There is certainly a diversity of illicit products and services advertised in spam and at rogue websites, but far and away drugs represent the bulk of the problem. Not heroin, cocaine or marijuana but illicit pharmaceuticals. This should not come as a surprise to anyone as Viagra has become synonymous with spam and vice-versa. But it’s not just lifestyle drugs. Painkillers, psychotropics, anti-depressants, diabetics, and pretty much any drug that requires a prescription is being sold on domains sponsored by ICANN Accredited Registrars, and most are here in the U.S. The drugs are being sold without a prescription. And, no, the drugs do not come from Canada. Even though “Canada” is a favorite term for these websites the pills come from Turkey, Serbia, Moldova, and India. The medicine may be real or it may not be, but anyone consuming them is risking their health as well as giving money to organized crime. Rogue pharmacy is now at least at $100 Billion illicit industry and the Internet is driving its growth with absolute impunity. Criminals hire spammers to promote websites where drugs are sold illegally. Because spammed websites are quickly discovered and complained about they are often taken down soon after a spam campaign. To deal with this problem drug traffickers use multiple layers of linked and redirected domains that are not spammed, stay intact and endure. Spammers may in fact be the Registrars best customers. Whereas the ordinary business may buy one or two domain names, spammers buy thousands and then dump them. The Registrar can then resell the defunct domain names, so they get paid twice for the same item. Some reading this may think that Registrars are the fall guy here as it is impossible to track the activity of the thousands of domain names they sponsor. Problem is, they have been specifically informed of which domains are conducting illegal activities multiple times. Some might wonder then who is KnujOn to tell a Registrar about fake pharmacy domains? Actually, our reports have been endorsed by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy(NABP), The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), The American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and the Partnership for Safe Medicines. Regardless of our endorsements, if a Registrar receives information of an illicit pharmacy site sponsored by them from any consumer and does not investigate and terminate, that Registrar is now aiding criminals. If a Registrar continues to accept payment from the domain owner after being notified, they are then receiving money from organized crime. Bottom line is that the Registrars have the authority and technical ability to terminate a domain, even though many claim they do not. Registrars have the power to stop rogue pharmacy domains. The illicit networks rely on stable domains just like any other business. However, until the Registrars are told to stop sponsoring illicit drug traffic they will continue to do so. It is a ridiculous dance that cannot go on much longer. This farce is going to come to an end. -Garth More information: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fda-issues-22-warning-letters-to-we… http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/11/19/FDA-issues-22-Internet-warning-l… http://www.safemedicines.org/2009/11/spotlight-on-knujon-combating-counterf… http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com.au/articles/37005-Spam-won-t-die-so-em… ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Twitter: @Knujon Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205

1 0

Law Enforcement's RAA Proposal
by Danny Younger Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

The RAA amendments proposal put forth by members of the Law Enforcement community is attached as a Word document. Please note that the next Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Sub Team B call is scheduled on Wednesday 18 November at 1900 UTC.

4 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Law Enforcement's RAA Proposal
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

Thanks Danny, this will become all the more critical with something we're releasing tomorrow. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Law Enforcement's RAA Proposal > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Mon, November 16, 2009 6:32 pm > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > The RAA amendments proposal put forth by members of the Law Enforcement community is attached as a Word document. > > Please note that the next Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Sub Team B call is scheduled on Wednesday 18 November at 1900 UTC.<hr>------ > 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] REMINDER: NARALO Call Monday, 16 November 20:00 UTC
by Beau Brendler Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 16, 2009

I now need to conduct a training session at 3 p.m. today and can't be available for this call -- apologies. I can report that we could use a volunteer or two for help in drafting the RAA registrants' rights charter if anyone would like to help out. The official roster is still actually only me and Phil Corwin. If no one joins, that's OK, I will just put it together myself and send it around to interested parties sometime later this week or next. BB -----Original Message----- >From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Nov 11, 2009 6:05 PM >To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] REMINDER: NARALO Call Monday, 16 November 20:00 UTC > >Dear All, > >Friendly reminder that the NARALO monthly call will be held on Monday, 16 November 2009 at 20:00 UTC. > >The draft agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: >https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?16_november_2009 > >You will receive additional reminders prior to the call. > >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff at atlarge.icann.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

REMINDER: NARALO Teleconference Monday, 16 November 20:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon Nov. 14, 2009

Nov. 14, 2009

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 16 November at 20:00 UTC. Participation information and a proposed draft agenda(to be updated) are available at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?16_november_2009 If you require a dial-out, please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

1 0

[Nom-comm-2010] NomCom event during IGF
by Eduardo Diaz Nov. 12, 2009

Nov. 12, 2009

All: Please read the following message. I encourage any of you to apply for any of the positions that will be available during 2010. Regards. -ed ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:43 AM Subject: [Nom-comm-2010] NomCom event during IGF To: "nom-comm-2010(a)icann.org" <nom-comm-2010(a)icann.org> Dear all, FYI: Wolfgang has orchestrated a NomCom event at the IGF meeting in Sharm-el-Sheikh and crafted the invite below which has gone to the IGF organizers. You may wish to notify your contacts about the event. Best regards Olof -------------------------------- ICANN NomCom Outreach Meeting at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Sharm el Sheikh Do you want to become a leader in ICANN? Then you should join the ICANN NomCom Outreach meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 1.15 p.m. - 2.00 p.m. in Room 6 (Biblioteca Alexandria). The session will explain how you could become more involved in ICANNs multi-stakeholder bottom up policy development process and what you have to do to present a "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for one of the leading positions within ICANN. In 2010, ICANN's Nominating Committee will appoint three ICANN Directors, one ccNSO and one GNSO Council member and two members of the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). You will have a chance to meet Rod Beckstrom, ICANN's new President & CEO, ICANN Directors, selected by previous NomComs and ICANN staff. The session will be moderated by Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Chair of the 2010 NomCom. _______________________________________________ Nom-comm-2010 mailing list Nom-comm-2010(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/nom-comm-2010 -- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1 0