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

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN fires CEO
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

> Of possible interest: > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/16/icann-fires-ceo Personally I think Kiren's write up is sufficiently accurate, and the task of replacement could be made easier by simply having a temporary CEO being the temporary CEO and temporarily managing the CEO dossier. Someone subject matter smart, someone organzationally smart, someone trusted, Doug Brent is my first draft choice. And ICANN staff should unionize. Management errors should not result in loss of staff. Eric

6 9

Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

Beau, The exploit has already begun, and will continue until at least the early operators transition through the Sunrise/Landrush/General-Availability set of phases and the "you can get ..." buzz fades due to either ease of true registration or the demand fades due to unforeseen consequences such as a large, simultanious set of registration choices. So the utility runs from not too long ago, through at least mid-2013. The harms are: o to ordinary registrants, that of capture by the "facilitating" registrar, akin to frontrunning, only it is the registrant, not the domain, which is subject to some degree of enticement or coersion, o to ordinary registrars, that of capturing by the "facilitating" regisrars, of future transactions with the captive registrants, o to policy-based applicants, that their policies are fictional and some third-party is capable of binding them to its "pre-sales" committments, or that pay-per-click, or porn, or latin script labels in an IDN name space are policy-consistenent, o to all applicants, that their fundraising, investment offers, and marketing are all dependent upon the actions of "facilitating" registrars. So there is consumer fraud, and it doesn't go away by observing, correctly, that some of the defrauded consumers are ad word buyers, who are utterly indifferent to who wins any contention, or what policy applies to a name space, so long as the ad word inventory they seek to acquire costs less than the revenue it is projected to return, and therefore not defrauded, as these are not all the parties targeted by "facilitiating" registrars for "pre-registration" enticements. There is also the interference with applicants, creating non-market, and non-contract (with ICANN and also with all registrars upon delegation) costs, which of necessity harms applicants, and therefore harms registrants. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

Olivier... Thanks for your wise statements. Indeed we have been "winging it" process-wise, and the problem is not unique to the RALOs and ALAC. Maybe we can create a case study or something that traces an idea for action from inception at the ALS level all the way up to what the ALAC may or may not do with such an idea for action. I figured since the NA RALO had effectively signed off on the draft in the manner I described, and passed it on to the other RALOs with positive feedback from LAC and acknowledgement from EUR (I can't believe I am typing in these gibberish acronyms), then at the bare minimum it would be in the purview of the NA leadership in ALAC to champion the idea -- whether they totally agreed with it or not. I don't look upon statements like this as meaningless, I see them as the beginnings of articulation of policy generated by the grass-roots. Also, you wrote: "In such bottom-up processes, I am well aware of the risk of promoting the views of a vocal minority at the expense of a silent majority - and therefore if there is any doubt that a process has matured, I'd rather kick it back to its originator to work out a plan of action together." Indeed, I agree with you most certainly. But on the converse, there's only so many times you can kick around a draft statement, and for only so long, before people at the grassroots from where it originated start to complain that the fish is rotting. One such complaint already came my way, directed at me, for my "lack of action" on the statement in Singapore. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >Sent: Aug 23, 2011 9:26 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration > > > >On 24/08/2011 01:22, Beau Brendler wrote : >> Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its >elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency? >> >> Thanks for making me aware of this. > >I do not think at all that the response from NARALO's elected >representatives is a case of not listening to their constituency. It is >a case of NARALO reaching consensus, declaring it, bringing consensus to >the other RALOs and having the ALAC reach consensus on this. Noting that >I have not seen this process mature yet, I suggested that the matter >continue on email. > >Clearly Beau, the ALAC will need to discuss processes by which such >bottom-up action could be formalised and promoted so as to avoid the >current tendency to let subjects hang unresolved. In my opinion, RALOs >also need to work on formalising such processes. If we wish to be >proactive at promoting the view of the Internet users, this will need to >be discussed with all present in Dakar, with regional leadership as well >as ALAC members present around the table. > >In such bottom-up processes, I am well aware of the risk of promoting >the views of a vocal minority at the expense of a silent majority - and >therefore if there is any doubt that a process has matured, I'd rather >kick it back to its originator to work out a plan of action together. > >Kind regards, > >Olivier > >-- >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >

4 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

I did not intend to misquote or offend or take cheap shots at anybody. I apologize for such offense given. But I do think we have brought out an important issue here, and I think we need a relatively simplified and transparent way of elevating policy suggestions that emerge at the grassroots level, to move quickly up the ladder to the ALAC. Especially when one of our most experienced members, Eric B-W, states a public opinion that "pre-registration" amounts to a form of consumer fraud. "Consumer fraud" for us as a public interest endeavor should be ringing bells loud, and it's a low-hanging fruit for those higher up in the political chain to grab onto and amplify. I don't intend to take anything away from the importance of the JAS working group and other policy endeavors, but if we can't make a cohesive effort to inform the public of a potential fraud when it happens (and remember, we began discussing this issue prior to Singapore), then process is getting in the way of policy. It should not take that much effort to whip such a thing into a bigpulse vote and get it to Scott Pinzon or whomever the appropriate channel is, to issue a press release. And yes, I do take responsibility for not pushing harder on this in Singapore, but I just did not understand whether the movement on gTLD policy made the issue moot. Maybe we should consider creating a slot at the regional level for policy development, and ask that person to help formulate statements. Eric B-W has done this well on short notice on a couple of occasions, perhaps it is a role we could consider for him. If not, the chairs can do it. The regional people, the grassroots, the ALSs, have got to see and believe that their policy concerns are being listened to and addressed or they will not bother to participate. BB -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Aug 24, 2011 3:42 PM >To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> >Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure > >And the NARALO OP itself makes reference to IETF consensus procedures, >notably referencing RFC 2418 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt> (check >sections 3.3 and 3.4) > >- Evan > > > > > >On 24 August 2011 15:35, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> wrote: > >> For the consideration of the term “consensus”, I would suggest we go with >> the terms of our Operating Procedures which define what that means in the >> NARALO context: >> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2264679/NA-2007-1-1rev1+NA… >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> D**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Darlene A. Thompson**** >> >> Community Access Program Administrator**** >> >> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP**** >> >> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910**** >> >> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0**** >> >> Phone: (867) 975-5631**** >> >> Fax: (867) 975-5610**** >> >> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Evan Leibovitch >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:20 PM >> *To:* ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net >> *Cc:* Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure**** >> >> ** ** >> >> A few comments**** >> >> **** >> >> > Once consensus is achieved, >> >> What kind of consensus? Are there no issues for which voting is >> appropriate? >> Who is a consensus-capable contributor?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I can think of no issue -- outside of elections -- for which voting is >> preferable to consensus in the NARALO/ICANN context.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Consensus has worked to ensure that, whenever possible, minority views are >> accommodated rather than just rolled over by majority vote. The ability to >> use consensus for so much indicates a level of professionalism and maturity >> that indicates willingness to compromise and work together in a way that I >> consider preferable to confrontational votes in almost every circumstances. >> Contrast our workings to, for instance, LACRALO, where even small details >> can be subject to meticulous and hotly contested votes.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I can't speak for Beau, but IMO (and when I was chair) *every* contributor >> is "consensus capable". The process rewards participation and awareness. >> This process was even surprisingly resilient to attempts at trolling and >> gaming. It is an organically-developed process of which our region should >> rightfully be proud.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **** >> >> > the Chair requests that the ALAC discuss the matter. >> >> For those NARALO originating issues which concern one or more other RALOs, >> in principal, though the coordination could be direct, and therefore not >> involve any non-elected person, and also not depend upon a process model >> that may frustrate the purpose of RALO-to-RALO communications.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The Chair (or any other member of NARALO for that matter) is able to raise >> an issue in the At-Large mailing lists. There are no restrictions as to who >> may raise an issue -- an ALS rep or individual member who may be frustrated >> by regional leadership's unwillingness/inability to escalate an issue is >> *always* welcomed to take it direct.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Freedom to speak does not guarantee you'll get listened to, and regional >> support is of course an asset, but the forum is open and any ICANN-relevant >> issue is fair game.**** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> For those NARALO originating issues which do not concern one or more other >> RALOs, reference to ALAC is optional, not manditory. >> >> > Discussions and spearheading of the matter at the ALAC level should be >> > promoted by the region's duly elected ALAC representatives. >> >> Agree. With the proviso that the elected representatives may be instructed >> where the elected representatives do not support the NARALO issue in >> question, or alternatively, that we come up with a proxy exception to the >> process so that its general purpose in electing its representatives does >> not prevent its specific purpose in refering a NARALO originating issue to >> a body to which it elects representatives.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> In my experience, the issue is rarely that the elected ALAC reps are >> *against* the NARALO position -- indeed, one would suppose that they're part >> of the consensus behind the position. The problem as I see it -- that was >> the case in the matter that caused this issue to be raised -- is that the >> elected reps may lack the expertise and/or passion to give the issue the >> advocacy it deserves.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Years before I became an ALAC member I routinely attended ALAC meetings in >> a non-voting capacity, to advance issues I believed important. I worked to >> get them on the core agenda (rather than tacked on at the end as Any Other >> Business) by asking the ALAC Chair directly. I would be invited to the part >> of the meeting discussing the issue, advance the point and answer questions, >> then leave the call after the issue had been acted upon. This can be done by >> ANY NARALO member, not just the Chair -- though, again, having regional >> support certainly helps advance the cause.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Am I trying to deflect responsibility in my role as elected ALAC rep? I can >> only offer in my defence that I am already overwhelmed with region-neutral >> issues such as applicant support and broader issues related to the gTLD >> program and ICANN Future Challenges. I have a limited amount of cycles and >> am more than happy to work with advocates of NARALO issues to help them >> advance these issues ALAC-wide. But I can't always do it myself.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The people who advance an issue through NARALO consensus should also be >> ready to themselves help advance the issue globally. It is not shirking >> responsibility to state accurately that someone with passion and expertise >> on pre-registration (for instance), who has driven the issue at NARALO, can >> make the case for action at ALAC far better than Gareth or I can. There were >> also some communications issues, as Gareth thought -- and I can fully >> understand how -- that the issue had not received closure at NARALO.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Olivier mis-characterized the weariness of Gareth and me at the end of the >> last ALAC meeting as "lack of support" (and said so in a followup). Support >> take many forms, and sometimes that support means working with others rather >> than "going it alone" on issues on which I claim little expertise. Much work >> needs to be and there are very few people carrying the load.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> - 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 >------

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 25, 2011

Aug. 25, 2011

Colleagues, in this I only address the decision making form questions, as I see them. What happens after the regional organization has made a decision is not addressed here. Two issues, if not a third, are present in this exchange. There are two mechanisms for decision making, voting, by participants with standing to vote, and consensus, again, by participants with standing to participate in a consensus call. First, for which questions is which mechanism determined? Second, is access to the mailing list alone sufficient to establish standing for either? The latent third issue is assuming that the answer to the second is in the negative, does advocacy by actors lacking standing, presented as such, or presented as some other form of social interaction, but delivered undifferentiated from those having standing, have a substantial possibility of affecting consensus outcomes? My personal experience, after three decades of decision making by consensus in the IETF, and earlier in AFSC organized organizations, is that the body on occasion determines the outcomes. To give an example, at IETFs 50 and 51 a small group of engineers from CNNIC presented a proposal to the IDN WG to fix a known problem in the Unicode table for Chinese. An "intermediate table". There was not consensus that a problem existed, and therefore that the fix should be adopted. A globally incorrect engineering decision was made by a locally correct cost-benefit analysis -- few if any of the contributors to the IDN WG were native Chinese language literate. A "vote" would have recorded what even "rough consensus" obscures, that of the votes for intermediate tables, all of the voters were professionally engaged in the deliver of Han script characters to Han script users, and that of the votes against intermediate tables, none of the voters were so engaged. Incidently, and simply as an item of historical trivia, I was, along with Erik Huizer and Dave Crocker, an engaged contributor to the POISSON WG, which authored RFC 2418, and which Scott Bradner was kind enough to edit. It was about as long, though not quite as contentuous, as the ICANN VI WG. Turning to the question of standing, whether to participate in a consensus call or a vote, not everyone in who "contributes" to the IETF actually has "standing". Reputation matters. No matter how often Jim Flemming posts on the amazing features of IPv8, no one pays him the slightest attention. The situation exists today in the IDNA mailing list, as a collection of cranks attempt to promote their quite daft "multilingual" agenda as an IETF/ICANN text. As a regional organization, residence in the region matters, it can not be ignored without harm to the least of the region's participating residents. With that I'm calling it a day with a quote from former Ops Area Director Randy Bush, concerning routing infrastructure proposals, sent to NANOG a few days ago: The goal is education and understanding, not a contest. These are all good and interesting approaches. Weapons are not allowed, we all work for the Internet. Eric

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

Comments in line. > I would think that it should go something like this: Reformatted for clarity (mine, and hopefully others). > NARALO has a discussion on its mailing list and/or telephone conferences This is necessary. And for both a records purpose, and for accessibility purposes, the email list should be the venue of record -- that is, if it didn't happen on the list, it hasn't yet happened. > which is lead by the Chair. This is optional. Agenda setting and call time coordination are facillitator activities, which the chair may delegate. For example, suppose Marc Rotenberg were the chair, and the subject of the present call was privacy. As chair, he ought not to engage in vigerously pursusaive advocacy, yet as EPIC's lead, it may be that -- on this hypothetical call for this hypothetical chair -- Marc really wants to engage in vigerously pursusaive advocacy. Delegation of some or all of the "chair" function is appropriate, for the period in which there is a conflict of roles, and hence of interests. > Once consensus is achieved, What kind of consensus? Are there no issues for which voting is appropriate? Who is a consensus-capable contributor? > the Chair requests that the ALAC discuss the matter. For those NARALO originating issues which concern one or more other RALOs, in principal, though the coordination could be direct, and therefore not involve any non-elected person, and also not depend upon a process model that may frustrate the purpose of RALO-to-RALO communications. For those NARALO originating issues which do not concern one or more other RALOs, reference to ALAC is optional, not manditory. > Discussions and spearheading of the matter at the ALAC level should be > promoted by the region's duly elected ALAC representatives. Agree. With the proviso that the elected representatives may be instructed where the elected representatives do not support the NARALO issue in question, or alternatively, that we come up with a proxy exception to the process so that its general purpose in electing its representatives does not prevent its specific purpose in refering a NARALO originating issue to a body to which it elects representatives. > This would also imply making sure that it got its own place on the agenda. The obvious problem is what happens when an issue referred to a coordination body cannot, for whatever reason, be scheduled prior to some relevant point in time. The corollary is should an externally originating issue be referred to the NARALO, what should the external body do if the outcome is not to its preference, in timeliness or result -- fortunately, this is an issue for the external bodies not the NARALO. > Said duly elected ALAC representatives should make sure that they are aware > of the history and importance of the agenda item so that they can speak for > the region on the matter. This is likely, though not certain, from the involvement of the elected representives in the work of the NARALO. > I specifically state above "elected ALAC reps" because the NomCom rep is > not under an obligation to further the views of his/her region. Actually, the NomCom is under no duty to select anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of the NARALO, only regional resident status, so not only is the NomCom appointee free to act arbitrarily, the NomCom appointee is presumably unaware of anything more relevant than how to submit a SOI to the NomCom. I suggest we schedule the subject for a future confrence call, and continue using email to develop one or more proposals. Eric

3 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN fires CEO
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

> That assumes that the position of CEO / president and its role is something > which is open to community debate and discussion.. The bylaws do provide for advice. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN fires CEO
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

Michele, While I don't disagree in principal that remote management is less useful than local management, the individual I suggested as an interim manager has, unlike any possible external candidate, several years of just that experience in the MdR offices. I do however take exception to your writing as follows: > In any case, the entire thing is moot, as Beckstrom is staying on until next July First, the employee's representations are not relevent, nor, for that matter, are the representations of a single member of the Board, unless the regal style of the former Chair is to be unfortunately perpetuated, which lead directly to the selection of this particular person to be employed as the executive manager. Mr. Beckstrom's employment contract expires on a date. He may yet elect to take an earlier date of termination, and the actual interim executive management of the corporation may be carried out by one or more other persons. Second, as a matter of policy, this regional organization, may, whether any others join it, or oppose it, recommend that a situation which it holds harmful to the corporation be the subject of efforts to reduce the harm. This policy originating capacity is not conditional upon third parties. Had you written "For me [Michele Neylon], the entire thing is moot, ..." I'd only have to point to the first observation, the non-binding nature of the employee's claims regarding future performance of an at-will contract. An management period which resulted in significant loss of staff is coming to an end. It is reasonable to consider alternatives to the "strongman" style of leadership exercised by the former Chair, and the claims, which are very difficult to actually substantiate, of increassed "professionalism" and "performance", advanced by the non-renewed Executive, and collaterally, the utility of several recent senior hires, and whether any of the recent senior and mid-level losses of experienced staff are reversable. Eric

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

Beau, Passing on the process issue external to the NARALO, I have a few thoughts on the substance of the issue. The parties representing that they can, in conditional the future, perform registrations, if registrars, and bound under either the pre-2009 RAA, or the 2009 RAA, are required to provide the registration policy. Failure to do so is a compliance issue, which can lead to non-renewal or loss of accreditation. Additionally, given the allocation mechanisms the corporation selected where contention exists, and the absence of certainty that applications will be submitted, and not also be subject to allocation under a contention rule, the claim that any party may make, including a contracted party, that they will have some contractual relationship with a delegation holder is first, fictional, and second, subject to third-party interference. The more I think on this, the clearer it seems to me that "pre-registration" is consumer fraud, and harms applicants, and the appropriate course of action to urge ICANN to carry out its compliance obligations, to urge the regional law enforcement agencies that their consumer fraud missions include sales and "gifts" of inextant claims on applicants, and to inform applicants that third parties may not, proactively, make claims upon them for their inventory or their good will, without compensation. Eric

1 0

NARALO Election Update
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 22, 2011

Aug. 22, 2011

Hi all, This is just an update as to the NARALO elections for the two leadership positions of Chair and Secretariat as well as for ALAC representative. Since the people that ran/were nominated to these positions were completely unapposed, we do not have to have elections and the encumbants are as follows: ALAC Representative: Eduardo Diaz NARALO Chair: Beau Brendler NARALO Secretaria: Darlene Thompson Darlene Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

2 1