- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] New gTLDs
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Wendy and all, I largely agree with your observations and conclusions in your statements below. I would add that I have problems with #5 in addition to 2 and 6. I also agree that this process is not going to get us where we need/should be in regards to gold's. As I recall, we had many of these discussions and debates in 2000 and again in 2003 and 2004, if you recall Wendy. Obviously the safety and security issues regarding gTLD's are of the most important to users. These would include the ability of registries or proposed registries being able to provide for safety and security as it effects users and to a lessor extent, future registrants in these new gTLD name spaces. Right now, we obviously have serious security problems with existing gTLD name spaces and they are seemingly worsening, not improving. It also strikes me as more than odd how the GNSO council can make any recommendations regarding the introduction of gTLD's when they themselves have little or no experience in running any sort of registry that I am aware of. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 4:40 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] New gTLDs > >Hi NARALO, > >I promised you a brief recap of the new gTLD process and my commentary. > I support new gTLDs, but don't think this process is getting us there. > >*The links:* >ICANN's New gTLDs page: ><http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> >Recent update email from Denise to GNSO: ><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04898.html> > >GNSO's final report: ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm> >Summary for LA: ><http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/gnso-newgtlds-workshop-29o…> > >The allegedly "simplified" process chart: ><http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf> > >If you can read only one document, read the GNSO's 19 recommendations, >below (from the final report). These are the recommendations for which >the staff is currently working to determine implementability, and which >the Board will be asked to approve if they are deemed implementable. > >Speaking personally, I object to criteria 3, 6, and 20, and further have >concerns about 2 if it is not defined precisely. My overarching concern >about all of these is that they are indeterminate, and thus tend to bulk >up the evaluation process and invite gaming in opposition. I have yet >to be convinced that this "thick" approach offers benefits over a simple >string-matching comparison. > >> 3. Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. >A string, as such, cannot infringe rights, only its misuse. While there >may be legal remedies against the misuse of a string, such as defamation >or trademark infringement, in U.S. law, there are no "generally accepted >legal principles" giving rights in strings as such. > >> 6. Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. >There are few "generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and >public order" but plenty of people who will come forward purporting to >speak for them. Strings don't violate norms, either. This will be a >recipe for censorship. > >> 20. An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. >What on earth is "implicit targeting"? What opponent/competitor can't >dream up an astroturf organization that feels implicitly targeted by the >target TLD string? > >I've said many of these in greater detail elsewhere. >--Wendy > >GNSO >RECOMMENDATIONS ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4…> > >1 >ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new >top-level domains. >The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should >respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. >All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated >against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the >applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, >no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the >selection process. > >2 >Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain >or a Reserved Name. > >3 >Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are >recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally >recognized principles of law. > >Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized >include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention >for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark >rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the >International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in >particular freedom of expression rights). > >4 >Strings must not cause any technical instability. > >5 >Strings must not be a Reserved Word. > >6* >Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating >to morality and public order that are recognized under international >principles of law. > >Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the >Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant >on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination >of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the >International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial >Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World >Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on >Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). > >7 >Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run >a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out. > >8 >Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and >organisational operational capability. > >9 >There must be a clear and pre-published application process using >objective and measurable criteria. > >10 >There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of >the application process. > >11[skipped] > >12 >Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to >the start of the process. > >13 >Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of >demand is clear. > >14 >The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable >length. > >15 >There must be renewal expectancy. > >16 >Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new >Consensus Policies as they are approved. > >17 >A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base >contract which could lead to contract termination. > >18 >If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines[28] >must be followed. > >19 >Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering >domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars. > >20* >An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there >is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the >community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. > > > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.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] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Evan, Danny, and all, I must broadly agree with your response to Danny below. Yet still I fear and feel strongly that much of what Danny has stated is accurate or largly rings true. I do not believe that Danny is attempting to be disruptive, but is reflecting his frustration in observation to what he reads here and has otherwise experianced. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 5:16 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Danny Younger wrote: >> We are in the middle of the ALAC Review process. The >> very first determination that the evaluator will need >> to make is whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose. >> I am using this list to put forward the argument that >> the ALAC no longer has a continuing purpose. >> >> You may not like this perspective, but I have a right >> to express this viewpoint. >> >I am not for a moment denying your right to express your opinion, and >regardless of my views on your conclusions I can appreciate how you got >there. You may be surprised at the extent to which I (and I suspect >others) may agree with you. > >Just the same, you've missed my point completely. I'm not challenging >your right to speak but I absolutely question the judgment and tact (or >lack thereof) used in choosing this forum. > >By definition, those on the ALAC list (and its RALO subsidiaries such as >this) are generally involved because we _do_ feel that we're making a >difference. Repeatedly telling _this_ audience that At-Large is useless >and should be eliminated is both insulting and pointless. > >Certainly within ICANN there are places to express and debate your >views in such a way they may have influence, most notably -- as you well >know -- the ALAC review. I'll be more than happy to challenge or support >those views in the appropriate venues, but doing it _here_ is simply >destructive and distracting. It's simply disingenuous of you to complain >of our lack of effectiveness, while deliberately getting in our way and >attempting to distract and demoralize as we try to be effective. Indeed, >doing so will prove to be quite counter-productive _especially_ in >other regions that are less tolerant of verbal aggression. > >Until Plan B materializes, the status quo is what we have to work with. >Within this group, I am asking you to help us make the most of what we >do have (while working in other channels to improve the situation). >Otherwise, get out of the way and at least don't impede our efforts to >do what we can -- as I'm sure you're aware, ALAC is already far too >easily distracted. I'm really hoping you choose the former. > >And I'll be happy to help find a more appropriate place for a public >"the future of ICANN public participation" debate. Just not here, please. > >- Evan > > 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] Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

John and all, John, Thank you for sharing this information, very interesting and quite revealing indeed. I have been told second hand that a number of our members in Canada have recieved some of these questionable invoices as well. Unfortunately I don't have any copies. I did recomend that they send copies of those invoices to the CMP for their review. I seems that for some time the IROC and DROA have been engaging in very questionable activities at a minimum. It would also appear that ICANN has not addressed these activities in any meaningful manner that we are aware of. This however does not mean that ICANN is either unaware or has not been investigating IROC and DROA. It does seem very strange at a minimum that IROC and DROA are still in operation and why they are? I guess that their accredidation remains in place as well? If so, any reasonable person would have to wonder why? I personally also do not understand ICANN's legal council did not disclose these companies whom are approved by ICANN, unless they are so embarrased regarding their activities that to do wo would bring into question ICANN's staff and Bod's judgment. And further I am puzzeled why the FTC or DOC/NTIA and Canada's Competition bureau didn't recomend to ICANN to shut these companies down. -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:22 PM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request > >> I have composed a letter to ICANN Staff requesting the disclosure of a >> certain document. I would appreciate having this letter placed on the >> agenda for our next NARALO meeting, and any member feedback to further >> refine or augment this letter. > >In December 2003 DROA agreed to a court order and injunction due to >illegal misleading invoices and other violations of the FTC act. Press >release and link to complaint and court order: > >http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/12/domainreg.shtm > >The order was signed on DROA's behalf by Daniel Klemann. > >In June 2004, the Competition Bureau of Canada, which has a role analogous >to the FTC, fined Klemann $40,000 and issued a five year prohibition order >for fake renewal invoices. The press release says his company at the time >was 1480455 Ontario Incorporated, operating as IROC (Internet Registry of >Canada). > >http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic/site/cb-bc.nsf/en/00262e.html > >A press release from 2002 says that they also arrested and charged James >Tetaka in the yellowbusiness.ca matter described in your letter. In May >2004 he was fined $60,000 and also had a prohibition order. > >http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic/site/cb-bc.nsf/en/00464e.html > >http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic/site/cb-bc.nsf/en/01184e.html >(three items, one for IROC, two for yellowbusiness) > >http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic/site/cb-bc.nsf/en/01863e.html >(Tetaka fine) > >Since Klemann and Tetaka both appear to be principals in DROC/DROA, I >would expect that the ICANN rules to which you refer in your letter would >require disclosure of all of these actions. > >Incidentally, I have a stack of fake invoices from DROA and Liberty Names >(same invoice format, same maildrop) that's about two inches high, with >the most recent one having arrived last week. > >R's, >John > 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

Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request
by Danny Younger April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Dear all, I have composed a letter to ICANN Staff requesting the disclosure of a certain document. I would appreciate having this letter placed on the agenda for our next NARALO meeting, and any member feedback to further refine or augment this letter. The letter is attached. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

5 5

New gTLDs
by Wendy Seltzer April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Hi NARALO, I promised you a brief recap of the new gTLD process and my commentary. I support new gTLDs, but don't think this process is getting us there. *The links:* ICANN's New gTLDs page: <http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> Recent update email from Denise to GNSO: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04898.html> GNSO's final report: <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm> Summary for LA: <http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/gnso-newgtlds-workshop-29o…> The allegedly "simplified" process chart: <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf> If you can read only one document, read the GNSO's 19 recommendations, below (from the final report). These are the recommendations for which the staff is currently working to determine implementability, and which the Board will be asked to approve if they are deemed implementable. Speaking personally, I object to criteria 3, 6, and 20, and further have concerns about 2 if it is not defined precisely. My overarching concern about all of these is that they are indeterminate, and thus tend to bulk up the evaluation process and invite gaming in opposition. I have yet to be convinced that this "thick" approach offers benefits over a simple string-matching comparison. > 3. Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. A string, as such, cannot infringe rights, only its misuse. While there may be legal remedies against the misuse of a string, such as defamation or trademark infringement, in U.S. law, there are no "generally accepted legal principles" giving rights in strings as such. > 6. Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. There are few "generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order" but plenty of people who will come forward purporting to speak for them. Strings don't violate norms, either. This will be a recipe for censorship. > 20. An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. What on earth is "implicit targeting"? What opponent/competitor can't dream up an astroturf organization that feels implicitly targeted by the target TLD string? I've said many of these in greater detail elsewhere. --Wendy GNSO RECOMMENDATIONS <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4…> 1 ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains. The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process. 2 Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name. 3 Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in particular freedom of expression rights). 4 Strings must not cause any technical instability. 5 Strings must not be a Reserved Word. 6* Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). 7 Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out. 8 Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability. 9 There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective and measurable criteria. 10 There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the application process. 11[skipped] 12 Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process. 13 Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of demand is clear. 14 The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable length. 15 There must be renewal expectancy. 16 Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new Consensus Policies as they are approved. 17 A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base contract which could lead to contract termination. 18 If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines[28] must be followed. 19 Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars. 20* An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

2 1

User education 101: 10 security threats to watch for
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

All, Network world has put out a very comprehensive report that has significant user impact that would be very educational for users. Oh, and Darlene, it you choose to ignore it, that's fine with me! >:) See: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/040908-10-security-threats.html?t51hb… 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] ALAC Draft Accountability FrameworkandConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Darlene and all, I am sorry that you seem to be of the belief that your education level on IT is sufficient. A narrow view to be sure. Indeed all of us need all the ongoing education we can acquire from where ever we may be able to obtain it. The Internet changes every day, as do the threats to users do. Ignoring that is indeed folly! So I hope you will reconsider as I am sure others of reasonable facilties do as well. And again, please feel free to do your due diligance via FOIA request as I mentioned earlier at your convienance or avaliability. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 11:02 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability FrameworkandConflicts of Interest Policy > >Oh, no worries, > >I do not require "education" by imaginary people or their imaginary >groups. > >And, as Jacqueline said, I, too, am not staff but a volunteer. N-CAP >does not have any staff and that is who I am representing here (NOT >government). > >Darlene > >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 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:25 PM >To: Thompson, Darlene; Nick Ashton-Hart >Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability >FrameworkandConflicts of Interest Policy > >Darlene and all, > > Yes it is true that some of the ALS staff are greatly >in need of education. The users are not so much in such >great need of education. Users should be and will be the >educators to ALS staff members it appears to me thus far, >unless particular members of the ALAC staff are so erogant >as to be less than excpeting of that great lack in education >and definate need to recieve it. > > I shall continue to endevor to share what knowledge I >have, am learning, and shall continue to learn with the >ALAC staff, whom seems to be less than able or willing to >learn on thier own verition. > > We also all should try to remember that educaton is an >ongoing process although some knowledge already obtained >by some of us whom are professionals in the IT industry, >such as myself have not adaquately shared what knowledge >they do have regarding information that has been known >for several if not many yesrs that has only recently >become factors and issues in the operation of the Internet >at a very basic level which has a direct effect on all >users. > >-----Original Message----- >>From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >>Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:59 AM >>To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch ><evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Draft Accountability >Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy >> >>I *SO* agree with Jacqueline on this. >> >>How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that >>haven't been educated. This should be our major thrust right now if we >>actually want community involvement. >> >>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 >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>Jacqueline A. Morris >>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:03 PM >>To: Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart >>Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability >Framework >>andConflicts of Interest Policy >> >>Evan >>IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed >documents, >> >>brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I >>haven't >>read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >>I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the >>document. >> >> I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if >>we >>haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >>manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE >>we >>ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info >>out to >>their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >>So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do > >>would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >>discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that >>includes >>a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >>background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then >>they >>can try to comment. >>And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a >period >>of >>time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. >> >>Jacqueline >>-------------------------------------------------- >>From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >>To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" >><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability >Framework >>and >>Conflicts of Interest Policy >> >>> >>> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >>> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN >>staff >>> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to >serve. >>> >>> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >>> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >>> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so >>much >>> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >>> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >>> exists. >>> >>> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >>> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste >>extremely >>> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >>> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >>> public to them. >>> >>> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we >>are >>> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >>> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful >>inclination >>> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >>> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >>> serves. >>> >>> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >>> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and >>to >>> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >>> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >>> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough >>to >>> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >>> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and >>attract >>> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >>> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >>> >>> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >>> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >>> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral >>to >>> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and >>this >>> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >>> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with >policy >>> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >>> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >>> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >>> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and >>require >>> significant background information supplied in the local street >>language. >>> >>> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >>> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >>> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest >>sin >>> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >>> >>> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >>> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That >>ALAC >>> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its >own >>> image appears to indicate that: >>> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >>> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >>> serve its mandate >>> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it > >>> serves >>> 4) all of the above >>> >>> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs >and >>> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little >back. >>> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >>> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by >>a >>> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >>> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >>> >>> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional >>obligations. >>> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can >>be >>> handled with common sense and discretion. >>> >>> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >>> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the >>public >>> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that >>education. >>> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >>> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >>> >>> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ >>ALAC >>> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >>> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >>> >>> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >>> NARALO chair. >>> >>> - 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 NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ 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] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Danny, Evan and all, I also support this view... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 11:59 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Re: Then why are you here? If we're as useless as you >say, then you're wasting your time talking to us. > >Evan, > >We are in the middle of the ALAC Review process. The >very first determination that the evaluator will need >to make is whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose. >I am using this list to put forward the argument that >the ALAC no longer has a continuing purpose. > >You may not like this perspective, but I have a right >to express this viewpoint. > >I have always indicated my preference for a Supporting >Organization model that elects a set of ICANN Board >directors. The no-representation ALAC model is not >appropriate for the at-large community. > >You may recall that the At-Large Study Committee >recommended the formation of an At-Large Supporting >Organization (ALSO). I have always supported that >recommendation, and now that a Review offers up the >opportunity of embarking upon a new course, I am not >prepared to recommend that we keep on travelling down >the Advisory Committee road when there are better >alternatives (a Supporting Organization) that may be >pursued. > >regards, >Danny > 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

Meeting Summary Minutes
by Thompson, Darlene April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Hi all, This e-mail is to those of you on today's conference call. I always prepare meeting summary minutes on these calls but like to put them out to the list before posting them as I am far from perfect and sometimes cannot manage to capture everything that is said. If you don't mind having a quick read over these and then adding (or changing) anything that I might have missed or worded incorrectly, I would be appreciative. Sometimes its hard to hear what everybody is saying (especially if I am coughing and blowing my nose at the same time like today). 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 <mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca>

1 0

Minutes for NARALO Teleconference Posted
by At-Large Staff April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Dear All: We have posted the minutes for the just-concluded NARALO teleconference at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_14_april_2008. The Action Items will be posted shortly. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0