- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Danny, Chuck and all, Thank you Danny for making us all aware of this. Chuck, thank you for making us as aware as you possibly could regarding this proposal. Is this a TLD or a Domain Name? I believe you meant TLD. In any event, our INEGroup members will be very interested I am sure to review this proposal very closely and shall relay their remarks to me which I shall share as broadly as possible to ICANN staff, Bod and other constituency groups within the GNSO. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Jun 25, 2008 6:33 PM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [ga] VeriSign Registry Service Proposal > > >>>CHUCK GOMES: In the interest of transparency and disclosing my interests, I would like to inform you that VeriSign has submitted a registry service proposal for the allocation of single and two-character domain names. There aren't very many two-character domain names available, by the way, one. > So, unfortunately, until it's posted it is not appropriate for me to discuss the details. I can tell you that I believe that we incorporated a lot of the issues that were recommended in the comments with regard to ICANN's paper and that we think it has excellent benefit for the community. > And in fairness to ICANN staff so that we submitted it late leading up to these meeting and at a very difficult time for them to respond -- although we have had some interaction, so I don't want this to come across as a criticism to ICANN staff that it hasn't been posted. > If per chance -- and I don't know whether this will happen or not -- it is posted this week, we will be happy to talk about it and receive comments from people. > >https://par.icann.org/files/paris/Paris-GNSO-22JUN08am.txt > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Front Running motion passed
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

Bret and all, Wonderful! < sarcasm intended > So they just punted, eh? I suppose in the the Domain Name tasting non solution is yet to be implemented, the registrars and registries wanted to use Front Running as their best method of addressing the problem until of if the Domain Name tasting non solution is fully implemented across all registrars and registries which will not likely be in my lifetime. So essentially this whole process was another dog and pony show. Outstanding! < sarcasm intended > So I suppose it's time to get boned up again with those Restraint of Trade statutes, eh? -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 25, 2008 9:48 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Front Running motion passed > >Dear ALAC members, > >FYI, below is a message received this morning from the GNSO Staff. I >was the designated person from the ALAC to work on this committee. If >and when the GNSO reinstates the drafting committee, let's review the >ALAC position and appointment again as well. For the time being, we >can consider the drafting committee work I was assigned to do for the >ALAC closed. > > Bret > >Begin forwarded message: > >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Date: June 25, 2008 7:18:15 AM PDT >To: "mail=gnso-fr-dt(a)icann.org" <gnso-fr-dt(a)icann.org> >Subject: [gnso-fr-dt] Front Running motion passed by the GNSO Council >25 June 2008 > > >Dear All, > >The GNSO Council at its Open Meeting in Paris, today Wednesday, 25 >June 2008, unanimously passed the following motion on Front Running: > >Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes > >Whereas, > >On 17 March 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about Front >Running to the GNSO council, and > >On 8 May 2008 created a drafting team to define a pre-issues research >effort and asked the staff to prepare a response to the questions, and > >On 29 May 2008 ICANN staff prepared a response >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/front-running-staff-response-to-gnso-c… >to the question asked during the 8 May Council meeting, and whereas >this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and > >Information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for >the AGP will affect front running, > >Resolved: > >The Council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as >current research efforts are completed. > > >Let me know if you have any questions. > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > > > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > >-- >Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") >smime.p7s is a digital signature >http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html >------------------------------------- > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Fw: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Priorities Amuck: ICANN Poised to Trigger Naming Quagmire
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

All, I and our members fully agree with Laurens review here. It's clear that pending the GNSO review completion that some Constituency groups, namely the IPC and the BC are interested in gaining influence before users, the NCUC, and other thus far non represented groups in the GNSO of ICANN gain influence in the decision making process of ICANN. What worries me is as Lauren points out, that security concerns for users of all types and at all levels will be facing increasing attempted criminal scams, far more additional UCE/Spam ect., and that LEA's will be facing a far greater challenge accordingly. Perhaps this is what ICANN intends vis a vi "dilution is the solution to polution" attitude? -----Forwarded Message----- >From: privacy(a)vortex.com >Sent: Jun 25, 2008 10:01 AM >To: privacy-list(a)vortex.com >Subject: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Priorities Amuck: ICANN Poised to Trigger Naming Quagmire > > > > Priorities Amuck: ICANN Poised to Trigger Naming Quagmire > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000393.html > > >Greetings. With all of the high-priority issues we face today >regarding the Internet --like assuring network neutrality, or even >getting decent Internet services to the 80% of the world's >population that doesn't have them now -- it's distressing to see >that ICANN is poised tomorrow to potentially trigger a confusing and >likely highly litigious, wasteful, and disruptive land grab in new >global top-level domain names (gTLDs) -- >( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm ). > >While ICANN's theoretical rationale for loosening up the domain name >environment is not utterly without merit, the likely real world >implications of a relative flood of new top-level domain names >should be pretty obvious to even a casual observer of the Net over >recent years. > >Everybody and his brother will want a top-level name. ICANN will be >deluged with applications. Clever crooks will find ways to game the >application and auction processes in league with shady registries. >Name confusion and phishing will rise to new heights. Full >employment for lawyers is guaranteed, as trademark disputes -- and >other legal disputes filed against ICANN's decisions regarding >particular names, balloon to capture as much oxygen as possible. >The dot-ex-ex-ex controversy and related censorship concerns >associated with the horrible idea of a sex-centric TLD will rise yet >again from the grave. > >And through it all, ICANN will be spinning its wheels with a >complicated and expensive process while so many more important >Internet issues are rotting essentially ignored on the sidelines >( http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm ). > >ICANN needs to get over their "domain names as issue #1" fetish once >and for all. Some minor relaxation of the gTLD structure is >probably warranted, but not the waste of time, money, and other >resources that their current plan seems sure to trigger -- and we >could definitely live without the consumer confusion and risks that >will arise from this mess as well. > >Enough is enough. It's time for ICANN to get its priorities straight. > >--Lauren-- >Lauren Weinstein >lauren(a)vortex.com or lauren(a)pfir.org >Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 >http://www.pfir.org/lauren >Co-Founder, PFIR > - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org >Co-Founder, NNSquad > - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org >Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com >Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > >_______________________________________________ >privacy mailing list >http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Dominik, Evan, and all, I understood that the context to which you refer Dominik is one possible meaning. But not the only one. Still, my questions stand as relevant in any context, which is why I posed them in the manner in which I did. Users can only represent themselves as whom and what they are in the manner they are most familier with even if that manner is offensive to other users irrespective of context. Parsing or attributing context to a particular meaning in any language can be difficult, often misunderstood, and frequently malinged improperly. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 22, 2008 6:53 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Jeff, > >Evan's wording is ok. I see it in the context 'what would happen if' in >connection with other posts on this thread. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 11:09 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Dominik and all, > > I am not sure how the summit organizers could endanger the ALAC or the >RALO's any worse than they have endangered themselves already. I am >also clearly sure the statement on the ALAC review is significantly >flawed as to user participation and representation on the ICANN Bod as >it does not reflect the known users desires and reasonable rights via >the OECD declaration posted earlier, nor accomplish ICANN's mission re >the MOU. > >Again for OECD declaration see: >http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf >Note: I and our members fully support the principals of this declaration >and believe that it largely can and should apply to ICANN. > > Further I am more than a bit baffled by Evan's meaning by stating >"improper comments by some individuals". What "improper comments by >some individuals" is he referring to, and how could their be such >statements in the first place, unless he is just stating his own >personal opinion as if it were gospel or even actually authoritative to >stakeholder/users everywhere, which obviously such cannot be true? >Evan, can you clarify please? Please bare in mind that if you answer >directly, and regardless of your answer, casting false aspersions upon >others, however indirectly, is in and of itself often times considered >"improper" or not "appropriate" in legal parlance. >And if done so publicly is considered civil defamation. > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>Sent: Jun 22, 2008 1:02 AM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review >> >>Evan, >> >>I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the >>importance of the summit. >> >>The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who >>could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have >>understood from the remark. >> >>To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post >> >>"the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and >>board to rethink support for the summit at this time" >> >>I am optimistic :-) >> >>Dominik >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM >>To: Dominik Filipp >>Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review >> >>Dominik Filipp wrote: >>>> that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could >>>> endanger the summit being ok'd >>>> >>> >>> Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be >>punished? >>> If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted. >>> >>I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here >are >>acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO >>naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. >> >>IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to >>outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is >>minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the >>Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that >>doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated >>and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven >otherwise. >> >>- Evan >> >> >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list >s.icann.org >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>------ > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Dominik and all, I am not sure how the summit organizers could endanger the ALAC or the RALO's any worse than they have endangered themselves already. I am also clearly sure the statement on the ALAC review is significantly flawed as to user participation and representation on the ICANN Bod as it does not reflect the known users desires and reasonable rights via the OECD declaration posted earlier, nor accomplish ICANN's mission re the MOU. Again for OECD declaration see: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf Note: I and our members fully support the principals of this declaration and believe that it largely can and should apply to ICANN. Further I am more than a bit baffled by Evan's meaning by stating "improper comments by some individuals". What "improper comments by some individuals" is he referring to, and how could their be such statements in the first place, unless he is just stating his own personal opinion as if it were gospel or even actually authoritative to stakeholder/users everywhere, which obviously such cannot be true? Evan, can you clarify please? Please bare in mind that if you answer directly, and regardless of your answer, casting false aspersions upon others, however indirectly, is in and of itself often times considered "improper" or not "appropriate" in legal parlance. And if done so publicly is considered civil defamation. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 22, 2008 1:02 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Evan, > >I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the >importance of the summit. > >The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who >could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have >understood from the remark. > >To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post > >"the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and >board to rethink support for the summit at this time" > >I am optimistic :-) > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM >To: Dominik Filipp >Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Dominik Filipp wrote: >>> that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could >>> endanger the summit being ok'd >>> >> >> Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be >punished? >> If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted. >> >I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here are >acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO >naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. > >IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to >outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is >minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the >Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that >doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated >and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven otherwise. > >- Evan > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

Civil society/Internet users statement in Seoul to the OECD
by Brendler, Beau June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Hello, folks. I realize we all have a lot on our own plates during Paris. However, I attach here the "Seoul declaration" of civil society and organized labor (and some groups representing individual internet users) from the OECD meeting last week. There were a few of our ICANN community colleagues there, including Izumi Aizu, Adam Peake, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and I was there. If NA RALO (or even the ALAC) chose to endorse this statement, it could do so. I have my own opinions about the statement itself. I do find it interesting that in some ways the "user community" that made this statement to the OECD has some similar concerns about how that organization accepts feedback from Internet users. The OECD structure seems to give the user community (referred to, perhaps unfortunately, as "civil society and organized labor") equal footing with the business constituency and the government constituency, at least in appearance. We can only guess how the ministers themselves weigh it, however. -----Original Message----- From: coalition-bounces(a)mailman.epic.org on behalf of Katitza Rodriguez Pereda Sent: Mon 6/16/2008 11:10 PM To: coalition(a)mailman.thepublicvoice.org Subject: [Coalition] The Seoul Declaration Please help us spread the word of the Declaration ------------------------------- Dear all, A diverse group of civil society groups have worked on a joint Civil Society Declaration to the OECD 2008 Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy, which is currently taking place in Seoul. It raises a number of issues of major importance to the civil society community and makes a number of recommendations to move us towards the future of the Internet that meets the essential needs of all the world's citizens. The declaration has been signed by (so far) EPIC, EFF, EDRi, IRIS, IT4Change, Public Knowledge, APC, and Consumers Korea, Jinbonet, and many individuals who are present in Seoul The full text of the Declaration is at: <http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf> and set out in clear text below (apologies for formatting) The declaration is open for sign on by civil society organizations and individual CS representatives. If your organization / you are interested in signing on, please email Katitza Rodriguez Pereda of EPIC at katitza(a)datos-personales.org. Many thanks and all best, --- June 2008 1 "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration" CIVIL SOCIETY - TUAC "THE SEOUL DECLARATION" TO THE OECD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY Seoul, Korea 16 June 2008 This gathering of civil society organizations and organized labor at the OECD Ministerial Conference on the Future of the Internet Economy provides a unique opportunity to bring to the attention of the OECD Ministers assembled and the OECD member countries the concerns and aspirations of people around the globe, those who are on the Internet and those who are not. We thank the OECD and the Government of Korea for the opportunity to organize a civil society and labor event and to participate in the OECD Ministerial Conference. Civil society and labor together prepared a paper for the OECD and organized a conference "Making the future of the Internet work for citizens, consumers and workers." A wide range of organizations participated in this effort, and this Declaration builds on its results. A BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY The policy goals for the Future Internet Economy should be considered within the broader framework of protection of human rights, the promotion of democratic institutions, access to information, and the provision of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced communication networks and services. Compliance with international human rights standards and respect for the rule of law, as well as effective human rights protection, must be the baseline for assessing global information society policies. Economic growth should be for the many and not the few. The Internet should be available to all. We therefore call attention of the OECD to Ministers to the following issues and we make the following recommendations: * Freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is being violated around the globe by state censorship and by more subtle measures such as content filtering, privatized censorship and restrictions on so- called "harmful content." We urge the OECD to defend freedom of expression and to oppose mandated filtering, censorship of Internet content, and criminalization of content that is protected under international freedom of expression standards. * Protection of Privacy and Transparency, We reaffirm our support for the OECD Privacy Guidelines as a fundamental policy instrument setting out minimal requirements for the transborder flow of personal data. We recommend adoption of the recent policy guidance on RFID and Online Identity Theft as Council Recommendations. We call on OECD countries to adopt and enforce data protection laws covering all sectors, both online and offline, and to establish international data protection standards that are legally enforceable. We further urge member states to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability for all data processing for border security, identification, and decision-making concerning individuals. * Consumer Protection. Trust and confidence are critical to the success of the Internet economy. The OECD should ensure that consumer protection laws are properly enforced and cover digital products to the same extent that other consumer goods and services are covered. We recommend that the OECD adopt the policy proposals on Empowering Consumers in Communications Services and in Mobile Commerce as Council Recommendations, and that the OECD member countries implement these recommendations. We support the OECD's efforts to facilitate cross- border enforcement of anti-spam laws and to develop effective online dispute resolution mechanisms. * Employment, Decent Work and Skills. We recommend that OECD Member countries promote learning and training opportunities for workers and address the technological and organizational change in the workplace. We further urge the OECD to lower the carbon footprint of the ICT industry and to promote compliance with core labor standards and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. * Promotion of Access to Knowledge. We support open access to government-funded scientific and scholarly works and endorse the OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data. We support the OECD Recommendation for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public Information. OECD countries should oppose extensions of copyright terms and private ownership of essential knowledge and cultural information that can be made available on the Internet. We recommend that the OECD undertake a study on the importance of copyright exceptions for education, libraries and archives, the disability community, and new innovative services. * Internet Governance. Internet governance structures should reflect democratic values and be transparent and publicly accountable to users. Global Internet policymaking should involve equal participation of all people, countries, and stakeholders. We call upon the OECD member states to support the Internet Governance Forum and to promote the multi- stakeholder process of the World Summit on the Information Society. * Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. Standards-making processes should be open and should encourage competition. This promotes innovation and development. We support the procurement policies that promote open standards, open data formats, and free and open software. We further recommend that the OECD Member Countries oppose discrimination by network providers against particular applications, devices, or content and preserve the Internet's role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication. * Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. We urge the OECD member countries to maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property protection that is least intrusive to personal privacy, least restrictive for the development of new technologies, and that promotes creativity, innovation, and learning. We support the OECD Policy Guidance for Digital Content. OECD countries should oppose proposals that would deny individuals access to all Internet services and opportunities based on alleged copyright infringement. We are also concerned about the secrecy of the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA) treaty process and the possibility of policies that may limit legitimate business activity, the participative web, and e-government service delivery. * Support for Pluralistic Media. The Internet is a universal platform for innovation, growth, and the ability of people to express and share their views. New forms of media and new applications are emerging that challenge old paradigms and enable broader public participation. At the same time, dominant Internet firms are moving to consolidate their control over the Internet. It is vitally important for the OECD to develop a better understanding of the challenge industry consolidations pose to the open Internet. The OECD Policy Guidance on Convergence and Next Generation Networks provides a basis this work. * Inclusive Digital Society. The Internet should be accessible to all. OECD member countries should ensure that all residents have the means to access the Internet and should provide public Internet access, training and support. Particular attention should be paid to rural, remote and aboriginal populations, as well as the disability community. * Cultural Diversity. We support the efforts of the OECD to promote access to the full range of the world's cultures and to ensure that the Internet economy reflects the true diversity of language, art, science, and literature in our world. The deployment of International Domain Names should be a priority. PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND LABOUR This participation of civil society and organized labor reaffirms the role of all stakeholders in the Future of the Internet Economy. Now it is time to formalize this process. In 1998 civil society and labor urged the OECD Ministerial Conference in Ottawa to establish an Advisory Council, similar to the Business Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) for business and the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) for labor. We said that this new Advisory Council should include civil society groups in such fields as human rights and democracy, privacy and data protection, consumer protection, and access to information and knowledge. We urge the OECD to establish now the Civil Society Advisory Committee. The creation of an OECD Civil Society Advisory Committee is necessary to help realize the democratic goals of inclusion, participation, transparency and accountability at the OECD. The OECD offers an important forum for the discussion of policies concerning the future of the Internet. We welcome this dialogue and urge the Ministers and members countries of the OECD to fully engage civil society and labor organizations within their own countries. In all decisions related to the Internet economy, we advise the OECD Ministers and the members countries to give particular attention to those indicators concerning literacy, education, and health. The success of the Internet Economy should be measured by the well-being of citizens, and not simply the extent of technology diffusion. *** Scanned

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

George and all, Glad you swung in George ( of the jungle )! Must be a banana shortage amongst other food shortages in your neck of the jungle. >:) But more to the point, yes this is rather troubling indeed. And yes of course, registries like Verisign I am sure are watching very closely to see how ICANN responds and indeed may respond in kind. This request seems like a "Post-front-running" scheme to me... The real danger is that if approved, and/or practiced by afilias or other registries for political purposes to suppress speech, I am rather sure that the courts will need to be involved at some point to correct abusive registry practices such as this one could become or used for. However there is always an upside to this requests approach to dealing with abusive Domains, such as those the promote Child pornography, spam, and those that are frequently used for phishing purposes. Such a practice would relieve the ICANN staff from doing their oversight in this narrow but very important regard and at the same time send a message to other yet to be reveled or known abusive domain name registrants that they need to clean up their act, or face Registry damnation. But than again I thought that DMCA and LEA's and the courts is/are for addressing these abusive Domain name problems? If now these entities are not adequate as ACTA indicates, and perhaps the courts dockets are too inundated with filings as well as US-CERT.gov and IC3.GOV filed complaints are too numerous to address in a timely manner, than perhaps this request will act as a potential relief valve? -----Original Message----- >From: George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Jun 21, 2008 3:50 PM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [ga] Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy > > >Hi folks, > >ICANN has posted a request by Afilias for a new registry service in >relation to "abusive" domains in dot-info: > >http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007 >http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-request-20jun08.pdf > >While in general the proposal is motivated by good intentions, the >devil is in the details. While most folks (including myself) probably >care very little about the .info TLD, my concern is that any bad >implementation in .info might be copied or used as a precedent in other >more important TLDs, in particular .com run by VeriSign. > >In particular: > > >"Pursuant to Section 3.6.5 of the RRA, Afilias reserves the right to >deny, **cancel** or transfer any registration or transaction, or place >any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it >deems necessary, **in its discretion**;........" > >(emphasis added) > >I would be against giving VeriSign (if the model was copied to .com) >that discretionary power over my company's domains, especially the >"right to cancel." What exactly is "illegal"? In China, I'm sure there >are many things that are illegal that are perfectly legal in Canada, >the USA or the EU. Suppose a domain name gets hacked for a brief time, >and is temporarily used to serve up spam or malware, etc. That company >experiencing bad luck, having their site hacked, can then be put >totally out of business in the event that the registry operator, "in >its discretion," decides to cancel the domain name. > >Thus, I think concern should be raised that any implementation be very >conservative in order to protect the inherent right of registrants to >due process. The potential for harm in a bad implementation is >enormous, and companies and individuals could be put out of business if >a valuable domain name is taken from a registrant. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >http://www.kirikos.com/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

Bret and all, I and I am very sure most users and registrants are more interested in what is "Best for ICANN" than what is simply "Good for ICANN" given that ICANN is a service Corporation 501 c(3) California corporation with a defined and distinct duty to the community it serves which are the users and registrant-users. Registries and Registrars are a part of the service ICANN is required to provide accordingly. Further it is the users that ultimately PAY for the service ICANN is supposed to and required to provide. So frankly yet again, I don't believe that ICANN is even adaquately providing the service it is required to provide despite the good to execellent advise it has long now been provided to do so. -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 20, 2008 8:48 AM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >On Jun 20, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> The NomComm, like the people it selects, are accountable to nothing >> but >> an abstract notion of what is "good for ICANN". > >This is, in fact, the very guide that everyone uses when assuming an >official role within an organization, profit or non-profit. Officers >and Directors have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests >of the corporation. > >I suppose I'm having difficulty understanding what different >accountability mechanism you are recommending, because from my >perspective, everyone in an official ICANN position, from your >position as NARALO Chair all the way to the CEO and Chairman of the >Board, has an obligation to act for the "good of ICANN." That >obligation necessarily trumps any other obligation to any other body, >including one's employer, constituency, or ALS. > >That said, we can, and should in a healthy ICANN, have differing views >about what is "good for ICANN." > > Bret > > > > >------ >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 >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

Bret and all, Now you got it! Execellent approach! I do believe Robert attempted to do this very thing with his "Core Values" thread recently, but was chastized and rebuffed regarding the "Privacy" consideration. So this may also be a contentious approach as well, but in my view a far better approach none the less. Along this line one might want to review: Appeals Court Grants 4th Amendment Protection to Electronic Messages http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-06-19-privacy-work-commun… http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-text19-2008jun19,0,933444.story And: Software Engineer First to be Sentenced Under Economic Espionage Act http://www.cybercrime.gov/mengSent.pdf http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/19/BARD11B9U7.DTL And: US Congress to Consider Eavesdropping Law http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/congress.wiretaps/index.html http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/FISAINTRO_001_xml.pdf ] And: NebuAd Comes Under Fire for Allegedly Violating User Privacy and Security http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Report-slams-US-advert-server-for-wi… http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art… http://www.freepress.net/files/NebuAd_Report.pdf -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 20, 2008 10:40 AM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >I might try a different approach. Rather than tearing down the >Westlake report, why don't we list those principals we believe most >important for the ALAC going forward? Remember, this is a review of >the ALAC, not a review of the Westlake report, so we should talk about >how we want the ALAC to evolve. What do we want for staff support, >funding, representation on the Board and SOs? > > Bret > > > >------ >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 >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

Robert and all, Frankly it seems clear that the ALAC review was intended to devide users from different regions. The politics and games are a result of long standing lack of professional leadership of the ICANN staff and Bod. That reality can change, but without users and registrants driving for that change consistantly such a change will never fully be realized. -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: Jun 20, 2008 3:14 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Evan: > >a couple of quick comments : > >- I would focus comments just on the report, and be softer on the >language related to the selection of the consultant. >- agree with evan's comments - though there is a larger - political >issue worth considering. that being that a negative response by >At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd >- a politically saavy person would not ouright reject the summit >proposal - but, instead place poisoned recommendations in the alac >review. the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff >and board to rethink support for the summit at this time. After all - >our input - politics and games - should be expected. That is the >political reality that is ICANN. the at-large community needs to >think strategically and have a - strong voice to react to the draft. >otherwise, it could be used to divide us. > >- Should we have strong reaction to the report (and i'm supportive of >that), it would be preferable if we could get other at-large regions >to support us. That way, it wouldn't be jsut NA - but broader. > >- specifics : we should also include specific changes, that we'd like to see. > >that's all for now. let's continue this discussion face to face - and >virtually - as much of NA ralo can't make to paris. > >Robert > > >On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >> >> NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my >> earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", >> that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus. >> >> Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other >> comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have >> a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night. >> >> If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the >> tone, etc. please suggest changes. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure >> possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by >> the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. >> >> The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of >> review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the >> independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be >> warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large >> in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we >> were heard, we were clearly not listened to. >> >> The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership >> on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation >> the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. >> >> Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs >> of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by >> requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists >> be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the >> Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the >> voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak. >> >> Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the >> vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of >> At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community >> outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's >> relationship with At-Large is bi-directional. >> >> What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but >> also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have >> neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. >> >> For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN >> community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, >> as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were >> constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the >> betterment of ICANN's public constituency. >> >> This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, >> 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and >> individual members. >> >> >> >> ------ >> 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 >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0