March 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date. However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/) According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) (“Registries”) (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG." According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf) Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food. Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman. NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS." In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role. However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are: * Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM >To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Hi, > >But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word. > >And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract. > >As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large. > >Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open. > >a. > >On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." >> >> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? >>> >>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? >>> >>> with kind regards, >>> a. >>> >>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> >>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >>>> volunteer time into the details. >>> >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> >> > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

14 68

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 2, 2011

April 2, 2011

>It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.< Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there. I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking). -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM >To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> wrote: > > >> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I >> think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective >> users). >> > >Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly >irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the >interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even >registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain. > >I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. >And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different. > >So basing any argument here about > >You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are >harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users. > >Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been >deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing >namespace? > >It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >the panic rush for more TLDs. > >The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >end-user demand (and my full support). > >- Evan >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

6 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

This was a general statement of discussion, not an attempt to convey an opinion derived through social science. One thing I don't need a poll to tell me, though, is that anecdotal evidence presented by someone who is directly lobbying on behalf of his own considerable financial interests should be taken with a tablespoon of salt. -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:46 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >I'm not sure I understand this -- is the will of the end-user decided by ad-hoc polling? If so, my own anecdotal evidence is quite different, and opposite. I'm very confident about my polling, and I'm putting my money on the line to back it up. > >What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors? > >If not private polling, how exactly are the desires of the end-user determined? > >Antony > > >On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >>> It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >> ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >> hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.< >> >> Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there. >> >> I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking). >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM >>> To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> >>> Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I >>>> think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective >>>> users). >>>> >>> >>> Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly >>> irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the >>> interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even >>> registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain. >>> >>> I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. >>> And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different. >>> >>> So basing any argument here about >>> >>> You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are >>> harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users. >>> >>> Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been >>> deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing >>> namespace? >>> >>> It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >>> ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >>> hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >>> does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >>> connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >>> more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >>> the panic rush for more TLDs. >>> >>> The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >>> end-user demand (and my full support). >>> >>> - Evan >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

as long as we are waxing nostalgic on this topic.... ------------------------------------------------------ Statement of Consumer Reports WebWatch on GNSO Report on New Generic Top-Level Domains October 24, 2007 Consumer Reports WebWatch is the Internet integrity division of Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine, Web site and other publications, with a reach of more than 7 million consumers in the United States and Canada. WebWatch's audiences include business, government and consumer constituencies, but within policy and Internet governance arenas, we represent the interests of consumers who may have no specialized training or education in Internet use. We do not consider domain-name registrants, for example, to be "end-users" of the Internet. We consider domain-name registrants to represent a small percentage of overall Internet users. We consider domain-name registrars and registries to be even smaller percentages of those with overall Internet user interests. We believe our goal within ICANN and within its at-large community is to advocate for overall Internet users at-large. WebWatch believes in consumer choice and freedom. With proper implementation and consumer education we believe the addition of new domain names will benefit consumers and create positive development for the Internet. However, we cannot support the current GNSO Report on New TLDs, and strongly recommend the ICANN board send the report back to the GNSO for reconsideration and redrafting. We will give general comments in section one, followed by specific comments in section two on those among the 20 recommendations and implementation guidelines we believe are most important to consumers. We will end with section three, statements of agreement and disagreement with other constituencies. I. General comments. Consumers have a limited understanding of the domain name system. For instance, most believe they are safer on sites within the .org domain and attribute a higher level of credibility to sites with a .org suffix. They believe the .org domain to be the providence of non-profit organizations, therefore subject to more intensive oversight and scrutiny, having a higher bar for "admittance" than a .com or .biz site. In reality, no such restrictions exist for .org such as those on .edu or .mil. We believe ICANN and the GNSO need to ascertain additional detail on consumer perceptions of the domain name system, either through survey research or literature review. ICANN should work with other organizations to promote better consumer education about how domains work. Few consumers are aware, for instance, of the sponsored domains, .COOP, .AERO, .TRAVEL, etc. What has ICANN and the GNSO learned from the success of, say, .MOBI and the failure of .COOP? The GNSO document contains no specific language about safeguards and provisions to prevent criminal abuse of TLDs. For an organization seeking to create a new TLD, what would the abuse complaint handling procedure be? How would takedowns be handled? To overstate the case, in order to make a point: The GNSO document is so vaguely worded it appears there would be little to prevent the Russian Business Network from creating, for example, a .trust domain in hopes of convincing consumers they could transact there in safety, while at the same time selling registrations to unscrupulous operators. The document presumes only law enforcement agencies should be considered authoritative sources for investigations and takedowns. In the United States, most consumers find law enforcement agencies to be unresponsive in cases of individual identity theft and Internet fraud. What recourse would consumers have with operators of sites in these proposed new TLDs? We know from experience TLD administrators are not interested in dealing with anyone who is not in a law enforcement organization. What about consumer organizations the public? Since most consumers are concerned about phishing, identity theft, fraud and other problems, we believe any document discussing means of creation for new TLDs must be specific in addressing safeguards in the creation and administration processes that would prevent these problems. The GNSO document is grossly inefficient in this regard. Strengthening and specification within these documents is especially important in light of the review of Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs). Consumer Reports WebWatch publicly stated, and stated within the RAA working group document, that these current agreements contain few to no incentives for compliance. In short, the RAAs have no teeth, and this GNSO document has no teeth. II. Specific comments: Recommendations. 7. "Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability1" According to what set of guidelines and provisions? 8. According to what criteria, and to whom, in what time frame, triggered or prompted by what circumstance? 9. Where will it be published? How will it be brought to the attention of the public? What are the criteria and how will they be arrived at? 12. How will dispute resolution and challenge processes be established? What guidelines will be used to establish them and what is the source of these guidelines? How will disputes be resolved in a timely matter? Who has dispute resolution oversight? 19. Or else? What is the penalty for violating this provision? What is the incentive for compliance? 20. Who will be on the expert panel? How will its makeup be determined? To whom will it answer? Specific comments: Implementation guidelines. IG C: What is the definition of "frequent"? What format will the communications be in? IG P: What criteria will be used to determine the makeup of the dispute resolution panel? To whom will it report? What sort of oversight will it have? III. Statements of agreement and disagreement with other constituencies. We agree with the Non-Commercial Users Constituency's assessment of recommendation 6, found on page 29 of the GNSO final report Part B. We agree with the Non-Commercial Users Constituency's comment on recommendation 7, found on page 31 of the GNSO final report Part B. We disagree with the NCUC's comment on Recommendation 8 (page 31) in that we believe more criteria are necessary, though we do agree that they must be published, adhered to, etc. We disagree with the NCUC's comment on Recommendation 11 (page 32). We do not believe placing limits on the participation of ICANN staff will generate the outcomes the NCUC posits. We agree with the Business and Commercial Users' Constituency in their statement of concern about abusive registrations. We support discussion and possible implementation of the recommendations cited by the Business and Commercial Users' Constituency to help control abusive practices. The BCUC suggests (paraphrase): * Graduated sanctions for contract non-compliance * Avoiding confusingly similar domain names * Avoiding infringement of third-party prior rights * Clear, quick and low-cost procedures for dispute resolution and removal of bad-faith registrations * Measures to prevent abuse of personal data Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Beau Brendler, Director Consumer Reports WebWatch -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:11 PM >To: NA-Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Interesting indeed. I must admit that I am one of those who has never >really seen the need for the "let a thousand flowers bloom" >philosophy of TLDs. When I started on the ALAC, I said as much a >couple of times. I was so shouted down and told I really did not >understand things that I learned to keep my mouth shut (about this >anyway). Until recently when it has somewhat become acceptable if not >universal within At-Large. > >Alan > >At 31/03/2011 03:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >>ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >>hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >>does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >>connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >>more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >>the panic rush for more TLDs. >> >>The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >>end-user demand (and my full support). > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Interesting indeed. I must admit that I am one of those who has never really seen the need for the "let a thousand flowers bloom" philosophy of TLDs. When I started on the ALAC, I said as much a couple of times. I was so shouted down and told I really did not understand things that I learned to keep my mouth shut (about this anyway). Until recently when it has somewhat become acceptable if not universal within At-Large. Alan At 31/03/2011 03:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >the panic rush for more TLDs. > >The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >end-user demand (and my full support).

1 0

ALAC Statement on the Whois Review Team issues - Call for comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Whois Review Team issues prepared by Carlton Samuels: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Whoi s+Review+Team+-+March+2011 Tiny URL: https://community.icann.org/x/VgO3 The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt <http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#idn-variant-tld> . The public comment closes on 17 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 7 April. An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] What ALAC said about new gTLDs in 2003
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Antony, without commenting on the substance of the ALAC positions then or now, I hardly think it is relevant to quote a 7 1/2 year old INTERIM ALAC position from a time when: - the INTERIM ALAC had only been formed earlier in 2003; - it was composed largely (10 out of 15) of members appointed by the Board; - the NomCom appointed members had been in place for only a few months and some may not even have attended the only intervening ICANN meeting that started 6 days after their appointment. Alan At 30/03/2011 06:40 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote: >"ALAC supports an expansion of the gTLD namespace that allows both >sponsored and unsponsored names. We understand that the current >proposed RFP limited to sponsored TLDs, is suggested as a >continuation of the "Proof of Concept" testbed. First, therefore, >we offer suggestions for making this limited expansion more >equitable. We further urge ICANN to move quickly beyond "testing" >to more open addition of a full range of new gTLDs in the near future..." > >http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/msg00067.html > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 2

ALAC Statement on the Draft Proposal for the Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs- Call for comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Proposal for the Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs prepared by Edmon Chung: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Draf t+Proposal+for+the+Study+of+Issues+Related+to+the+Delegation+of+IDN+Variant+ TLDs+-+March+2011 Tiny URL: https://community.icann.org/x/aAK3 The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#idn-variant-tld. The public comment closes on 6 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 1 April. An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, would you want to join a club that would have you as a member? I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance. Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power..." Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote? -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have signed registry contracts with ICANN. Until new TLDs happen, we don't qualify. We are allowed to observe, but not participate. I kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore. > >You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be a place for me *somewhere.* Luckily there is, but only one -- under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO. It's pretty much the "membership of last resort." It is in that capacity that I am participating. It's disheartening to be told that I should take my point of view elsewhere. > >Antony > >P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he is no longer with Demand Media. He's pretty much in the same boat I am. Waiting for Godot... > >P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much. > > >On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date. >> >> However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/) >> >> According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) (“Registries”) (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG." >> >> According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf) Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food. >> >> Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman. >> >> NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: >> * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, >> * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, >> * not be a member of a certified ALS." >> >> In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role. >> >> However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are: >> >> * Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) >> * Academic and research organizations >> * Community networking groups >> * Consumer advocacy groups >> * Internet Society chapters >> * Computer user organizations >> * Internet civil society groups >> >> I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >>> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM >>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word. >>> >>> And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract. >>> >>> As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large. >>> >>> Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote: >>> >>>> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." >>>> >>>> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >>>>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >>>>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? >>>>> >>>>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? >>>>> >>>>> with kind regards, >>>>> a. >>>>> >>>>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >>>>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >>>>>> volunteer time into the details. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>>>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>>>> >>>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>>>> ------ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >

4 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Hi, > >does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? > >Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? > >with kind regards, >a. > >On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >> volunteer time into the details. > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

8 7