September 2011 - NA-Discuss

WEBINAR - Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

Final Report Overview and Discussion - Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. In this webinar, members from the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) will provide ICANN stakeholder groups with an overview of the Final Report.. This report presents a proposal for ICANN to support new gTLD applicants coming from developing nations and is under consideration by ALAC and the GNSO. The report will also be available for public comment in the near future. Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: a) When should support be provided? b) Who should be approved to receive support? c) How should Support Candidates be evaluated? d) What support specifically should be offered? e) How should the overall support process work? f) How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process? The webinar will take place on September 19th at 12.00 UTC and 22.00 UTC The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. The recording will be made available shortly after Sept 19 for the community members that are not able to attend any of the scheduled times. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, September 19th at 12.00 UTC and 22.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Karla Valente Director, gTLD Registry Programs Mobile: +1 310 936 4639

1 0

NOTE THE DATE: WEBINAR- JAS WG Final Report - Monday 19 September 2011 @ 12:00 UTC & 22:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

* On behalf of the GNSO Secretariat* Dear All, JAS WG Final Report Webinar Please note the date and time of this webinar. The details about how to join the JAS WG Final Report webinar will follow later. Date: Monday September 19th, 2011. Times: 12:00 UTC and 22:00 UTC Session duration: 90 minutes Structure: Adobe Connect with a slide presentation (ppt) along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Sessions are duplicated. Recorded. Intro/moderators: Carlton Samuels, Rafik Dammak, Karla Valente Speakers: Avri Doria and Alan Greenberg. Members from the JAS WG for the Q&A session Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

NOTE THE DATE: WEBINAR- JAS WG Final Report - Monday 19 September 2011 @ 12:00 UTC & 22:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

* On behalf of the GNSO Secretariat* Dear All, JAS WG Final Report Webinar Please note the date and time of this webinar. The details about how to join the JAS WG Final Report webinar will follow later. Date: Monday September 19th, 2011. Times: 12:00 UTC and 22:00 UTC Session duration: 90 minutes Structure: Adobe Connect with a slide presentation (ppt) along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Sessions are duplicated. Recorded. Intro/moderators: Carlton Samuels, Rafik Dammak, Karla Valente Speakers: Avri Doria and Alan Greenberg. Members from the JAS WG for the Q&A session Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 12 September 19:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon Sept. 10, 2011

Sept. 10, 2011

Dear All, The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 12 September 2011 at 19:00 UTC. The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/XQGpAQ If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber-White, Seth Greene, Marilyn Vernon, Matt Ashtiani ICANN At-Large Staff

2 1

Changing the status quo (was: The European Commission Papers on ICANN)
by Beau Brendler Sept. 9, 2011

Sept. 9, 2011

This may sound strange coming from me but: What about developing stronger joint agendas with the NCSG. There are more than a hundred people in there now, a lot of new blood -- it's not just the handful of usual suspects. Some of the intellectual divides are starting to fall as well regards the anonymity-uber-alles ideology. And there is the new NPOC, which is what the consumer constituency could have been, if it had been given real board support and its board-appointed overseer had been given a mandate like Debbie Hughes was, rather than noodling for three years about what a consumer is. I mean, check out their freakin' web site: http://www.npoc.org/ It's a thing of beauty! And they have some substantial membership. I would recommend for Dakar getting Debbie Hughes, their chair, or someone from their leadership over to talk about issues [and NOT GNSO structure]. What the NPOC as an ally can offer us, at least at the GNSO level, is a vector into consumer issues where they intersect with non-profits and business. Allow me to explain: in my view, there is some commonality of issues between consumers, i.e. regular human beings who we are supposed to represent, and business, and non-profit operations. That commonality is: concern about domain name abuse; concern about cybersquatting and fraud (a major issue for the Red Cross is trademark protection, to prevent people being defrauded in developing countries by phony Red Cross sites), fast-flux and other things we are commonly told by the contracted parties are "outside ICANN's scope" [you should all understand by now that's code for: threatens to mess with someone's revenue stream]. The more we could get at-large aligned with the GAC and the NCSG or NPOC on certain issues, the more chance at-large has to be taken more seriously and not viewed as some appendage created by ICANN to conjure the illusion of multi-stakeholder participation. By the way, given my history, the person to do that is not me. At least not from the front. -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Sep 8, 2011 9:09 AM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: The European Commission Papers on ICANN > >> The question I therefore ask you and all of the cynics is, "how do we >> change that"? > >>From within the ALAC? We can't. We have no influence other than at the >margins. > >> You'll notice the ALAC recently released a joint statement with the GAC. > >Yup, the GAC has actual influence. To the extent we can nudge them, that >would be useful. > >> I remain convinced that we have more resources than any other >> constituency in ICANN due to our extraordinary membership. We are the >> world. > >Not to be unduly crass, but we have no budget. In all the consituencies >that matter, people get paid to lobby ICANN. > >Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet >for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. >http://jl.ly >------ >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 >------

5 7

FW: The European Commission Papers on ICANN
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 8, 2011

Sept. 8, 2011

OPI 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 ________________________________________ From: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org [governance(a)lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller(a)syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:56 AM To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] The European Commission Papers on ICANN The IGP blog is doing a series on the EC Papers on ICANN. Should be food for thought for people on this list advocating a stronger role for national governments in governing the Internet. Here are the first two: Payback time: The European Commission papers on ICANN http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html The second EC ICANN Paper: How low can they go? http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

6 13

NARALO Unaffiliated Members
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 8, 2011

Sept. 8, 2011

Hi all, I am trying to work up a list of all of our unaffiliated members. So far I have: Beau Brendler Eric Brunner-Williams Alan Greenberg Edward Hasbrouck Jean Armour Polly Wendy Seltzer Danny Younger Am I missing anybody? Thanks, D ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631 ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610 Taliin Taamsan Nunalingni Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat Titiraqarvia 1000, Nayugaa 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Hivayautik : 867 975-5631 Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Corporate Services Division Department of Education Government of Nunavut PO Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Ph: 867 975-5631 Fax: 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Administratrice du programme d’accès communautaire Division des services ministériels Ministère de l’Éducation Gouvernement du Nunavut Case postale 1000, Succursale 910 Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Tél. : 867 975-5631 Téléc. : 867 975-5610

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: The European Commission Papers on ICANN
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Sept. 7, 2011

Sept. 7, 2011

> If you compare the reality of every new TLD added since 2000 to the > promises made, they are without exception total failures. Without the North American Numbering Plan Administrator revenues, the business entity "NeuStar/NeuLevel" would have done more then shed staff in 2002. It would have been re-organized out of recognition, or gone. After a decade it has a 2% market share in policy-free registry products. Without the .org revenues, the gradually collapsing in member investor equity holding entity "Afilias" is also unlikely to have survived, even in the degenerate two-shareholders form. After a decade it has a 8% market share in policy-free registry products. GNR failed and was acquired by its service provider. The "Professional" model never even started. The 2004 pseudo-sponsored registries, .cat excepted, are market failures. > ... If you dial > back the expectations by about 98%, you could argue that .CAT and .COOP > are somewhat successful, since they each serve s modest fraction of their > quirky little communities ... Agree. Eric

1 0

(no subject)
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Sept. 7, 2011

Sept. 7, 2011

Joly, I'd like to pass on the sociological characterization -- short people would do just as well -- with the appropriate credits to Randy Neuman. It is possible there is a competition policy issue that has existed since the NIC contract was first put up for competitive bid, an issue not adequately addressed by any subsequent event, with the exception of the competitive redelegation of the .org franchise. It is also possible there is an agency issue that has existed since the IANA contract was hurridly put in place, an issue not adequately addressed by any subsequent event, though the publication of the FNOI earlier this summer by the DoC, rejecting certain claims made by the current chief executive officer of the corporation, may improve this situation as agency, when clear, can be delegated, and shared, under rules consistent with modern administative practices. Maintenance of the status quo benefits specific private parties. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: The European Commission Papers on ICANN
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Sept. 7, 2011

Sept. 7, 2011

Colleagues, I've not read the EC paper and don't plan to until after the 1st of October. I expect it will keep. I agree with John about regulatory capture. However, I know that many who are engaged in policy advocacy, including Verisign among other contracted parties, reject "regulatory capture" as a possible description, as they do not accept that "regulation" is an accurate description. The former, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of familiarity with federal (United States) administrative law, as well as a preference for some other legal framework, and the latter, possessing an abundance of familiarity with US administrative law, for reasons specific to agency capture and regulated party benefit, insist that "regulation" is not practiced. I don't plan to read Professor Meuller's paper. We've known each other's positions since the Working Group C period (1998) and have had nothing in agreement then or subsequent. What I suggest is that everyone try and understand each other, that when there is disagreement over whether "regulation" applies, that that is not overlooked by reference to some other benefit, or harm, and the assumption offered by Verisign, and its non-competitor imitators, currently with TLD franchises, or seeking new TLD franchises, that new TLDs are a sufficient substitute for redelegation or other means of reducing the market share of the incumbent monopoly, while held by some, are not assumed to be held by all, or necessarily valid, however attractive. Eric

1 0