- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [At-Large] Public Forum on GNSO Improvements, Monday 16:00 Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Dear All: I thought this note from Denise might be of interest. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: 21-Mar-2007 22:13 Subject: [At-Large] Public Forum on GNSO Improvements, Monday 16:00 Lisbon To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear At-Large Advisory Committee members and At-Large community members: Your participation in the 'Public Forum on GNSO Improvements' scheduled for Monday, 26 March, 16:00 - 18:00, in Lisbon is encouraged. <http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-public2-26mar07.htm> The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is hosting this forum to encourage additional public input and discussion on the LSE review and improvements to the GNSO's structures and processes. While input on all elements of the GNSO and the LSE review report are open for comment at the forum, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your views on the GNSO review recommendations listed below. (Note that questions raised about the recommendations listed below are included to prompt thought and discussion, and are not intended to represent the views of the BGC or its members). *Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to submit views on these and other recommendations in advance of the forum to <gnso-improvements(a)icann.org>. Authors of emailed input will be given an opportunity to present their views prior to opening the forum to comments from the floor.* o Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19. Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society; LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to establish a pool of available external expertise. - Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process, and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger constituencies — is this the right answer? - Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? o Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17. Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.' - Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council? - There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural elements in GNSO 'rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions for how the PDP should be revised? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? o Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21. Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16 members suggested). - How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board. - Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? (Please share this announcement with community members and other interested parties.) Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN denise.michel(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Fwd: Re: [At-Large] The Resolutions for the Lisbon Meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

I have forwarded this email as it seems for some reason to have fallen afoul of the spam filters on the mailman server. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> Date: 21-Mar-2007 01:26 Subject: {Spam?} Re: [At-Large] The Resolutions for the Lisbon Meeting To: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss < na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> In respect of AL/2007/R/1, I note (but do not understand) the remark that the LACRALO Secretariat is persuaded to the view that this matter is outside of ICANN's remit. AL/2007/R/1 calls for the abandonment of ICANN's 5-day Add Grace Period. The Add Grace Period is an ICANN invention unsupported by RFC requirements. It is first described by the IETF in Scott Hollenbeck's September 2004 RFC 3915 as follows: In March 2003, ICANN published a task force report describing other domain registry grace periods related to EPP operations. This mapping describes extension status values to note the grace periods described in the report, including: An "add grace period" after the initial registration of a domain name. If the domain name is deleted by the registrar during this period, the registry provides a credit to the registrar for the cost of the registration. The Add Grace period was originally introduced so that inadvertent typographical errors made during the domain name registration process by domain name registrants could readily be voided. With all the confirmations and re-confirmations now built into the domain name registration process, innocent typographical errors by typical registrants are now rare in the extreme. During the course of the last two years, the Add Grace Period has been put to a new and unintended use as a vehicle that allows for domain name "tasting" – the quantification of domain name traffic potential. Domains are being registered and parked during the Add Grace Period with advertising content that is semantically derived from the domain name; should potential revenues from such advertising exceed the domain name registration costs the domain is registered, otherwise it is returned to the pool of available names. During the single month of November 2006, the following quantity of domain names were deleted in .com and .net: 35,015,877 Over 35 million domain names were registered and not paid for in these two TLDs during this one month. Additionally, those engaged in offering professional domain name tasting services have recently adopted new tactics (as discussed on the Registrar Discussion List and elsewhere) that allow for names to be registered seemingly in perpetuity without payment through an automated process of registration/deletion/re-registration/re-deletion etc. I view these practices as malicious and recall the commentary in the 5 June 1998 "Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and Addresses," 63 Fed. Reg. 31741(1998): "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible." I recognize that an epidemic of typosquatting has resulted in conjunction with the proliferation of domain name tasting services and I seek to curb this ongoing abuse of the domain name system. I refer the LACRALO Secretariat to a MicroSoft Research paper entitled, "Strider Typo-Patrol: Discovery and Analysis of Systematic Typo-Squatting" at http://www.usenix.org/events/sruti06/tech/full_papers/wang/wang.pdf In closing, I support the elimination of the Add Grace period and view the recommendation as wholly within ICANN's remit. ICANN invented this Grace Period; they can choose to eliminate it. I look forward to an elucidation of your views. Best wishes, Danny Younger ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Information on the GNSO and Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

I believe that the draft TOR will be posted for public comment during or at the end of the Lisbon conference; I believe it is in the hands of the ICANN Board Governance Committee at the minute. As to the other points, obviously since these events didn't involve me and indeed predated my involvement with ICANN I can't comment on them. On 18/03/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hello Nick, > > You raise an interesting question regarding the nature > of the ICANN Staff role. I can point to many prior > occasions in the former DNSO environment when ICANN > Staff was neither neutral nor objective, and frankly > many of us saw the hand of Staff directly involved in > the process that led to the removal of directly > elected At-Large Directors. > > As a general rule, we have learned not to trust the > efforts of ICANN Staff, all the moreso when their > regular reports to the ICANN Board remain non-public > in spite of all the cries for greater transparency. > > Most importantly we have learned that Staff tampers > with Independant Reports through their "editing" > process (as was made clear by Denise Michel's > prolonged delay in making available the LSE Report), > and that Staff will attempt to control independent > investigation output by taking over the role of > setting the Terms of Reference for an Advisory > Committee Review (controlling the end result by > defining the investigative parameters). > > Speaking of which, aren't you scheduled to post the > draft Terms of Reference of the upcoming ALAC Review > for public comment? It was scheduled to commence at > the end of February, wasn't it? > > In any case, an objective assessment of the GNSO > policy-recommending process vis-a-vis the At-Large > would have made it clear that while the At-Large via > the ALAC may raise a policy concern, the members of > the At-Large are not considered to be a stakeholder > community with any voting rights in the GNSO and are > necessarily excluded from any final decisionmaking as > they have no votes to cast. > > > > --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > > Many thanks for your note. I will take under > > advisement your point about the > > chart and ask what is meant by that element. > > > > As to your following points, I'm sure you'll agree > > that the information that > > I give to the community has to be based upon the > > Bylaws and other objective > > criteria. It is for the community to then make > > judgments about how effective > > a process is, for example - or how meaningful a > > mechanism for input an > > element of a process might be - just as you have > > done. These views ABOUT > > something are necessarily separate from the > > 'something' in question. I'm > > sure that you'll agree that the only kind of > > information I should be > > providing is of a completely objective nature. > > > > On 18/03/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nick, > > > > > > There are a few errors in the document that should > > be > > > called to your attention: > > > > > > (1) There is no provision for individuals (even > > with > > > 10 endorsements) to raise an issue as is indicated > > in > > > the Svensson chart -- individuals have no > > stakeholder > > > status within the GNSO > > > (2) The chart also indicates that a Policy > > > Development Process takes 95 days start-to-finish. > > > While that may be what the bylaws stipulate, the > > GNSO > > > has often acted in violation of these bylaws. For > > > example, the PDP on new gTLDs is currently at day > > > #468. > > > > > > More importantly, it should be noted that the GNSO > > > schema keeps registrants and members of the > > At-Large > > > out of the policy recommending process. We have > > no > > > voting rights within this process nor the ability > > to > > > regularly advocate on behalf of our respective > > > communities as public comments are routinely > > ignored > > > by the "stakeholder" representatives that > > recognize > > > that we have no voting rights in the process. > > > > > > This type of "participation" granted to the > > At-Large > > > community in lieu of the "representation" that is > > our > > > right is truly less than useless and constitutes > > an > > > ongoing insult to the At-Large. > > > > > > --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Community: > > > > > > > > Since I know many ALSes are not intimately > > familiar > > > > with the GNSO and > > > > the GNSO Policy Development Process, I have > > drawn up > > > > an informational > > > > document which describes both and includes the > > > > graphical > > > > representation of the process previously > > forwarded. > > > > > > > > I hope you will find this helpful, especially > > when > > > > you are > > > > considering the draft resolutions which in the > > > > current draft call for > > > > a PDP to be initiated. The attached will help > > you > > > > understand what > > > > that means, and the other avenues associated > > with, > > > > and connected to, > > > > the full formal PDP process which can also be > > used, > > > > or which can be > > > > complimentary to, the full PDP process. > > > > > > > > Note that French, Spanish, and Portuguese > > > > translations of the > > > > attached documents will be available next week. > > > > > > > > All of these will be posted on the Wikis for the > > > > various regions as > > > > well and I will email those links when they are > > > > available. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > > > Director, At-Large > > > > ICANN > > > > PO Box 32160 > > > > London N4 2XY > > > > United Kingdom > > > > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > > > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > > > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > > > > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > > > > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: > > > > nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > > > > Skype: nashtonhart > > > > Online Bio: > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > --- > > > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > Bored stiff? Loosen up... > > > Download and play hundreds of games for free on > > Yahoo! Games. > > > http://games.yahoo.com/games/front > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > > UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: > > nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: > > nashtonhart > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Information on the GNSO and Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Many thanks for your note. I will take under advisement your point about the chart and ask what is meant by that element. As to your following points, I'm sure you'll agree that the information that I give to the community has to be based upon the Bylaws and other objective criteria. It is for the community to then make judgments about how effective a process is, for example - or how meaningful a mechanism for input an element of a process might be - just as you have done. These views ABOUT something are necessarily separate from the 'something' in question. I'm sure that you'll agree that the only kind of information I should be providing is of a completely objective nature. On 18/03/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Nick, > > There are a few errors in the document that should be > called to your attention: > > (1) There is no provision for individuals (even with > 10 endorsements) to raise an issue as is indicated in > the Svensson chart -- individuals have no stakeholder > status within the GNSO > (2) The chart also indicates that a Policy > Development Process takes 95 days start-to-finish. > While that may be what the bylaws stipulate, the GNSO > has often acted in violation of these bylaws. For > example, the PDP on new gTLDs is currently at day > #468. > > More importantly, it should be noted that the GNSO > schema keeps registrants and members of the At-Large > out of the policy recommending process. We have no > voting rights within this process nor the ability to > regularly advocate on behalf of our respective > communities as public comments are routinely ignored > by the "stakeholder" representatives that recognize > that we have no voting rights in the process. > > This type of "participation" granted to the At-Large > community in lieu of the "representation" that is our > right is truly less than useless and constitutes an > ongoing insult to the At-Large. > > --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > > Dear Community: > > > > Since I know many ALSes are not intimately familiar > > with the GNSO and > > the GNSO Policy Development Process, I have drawn up > > an informational > > document which describes both and includes the > > graphical > > representation of the process previously forwarded. > > > > I hope you will find this helpful, especially when > > you are > > considering the draft resolutions which in the > > current draft call for > > a PDP to be initiated. The attached will help you > > understand what > > that means, and the other avenues associated with, > > and connected to, > > the full formal PDP process which can also be used, > > or which can be > > complimentary to, the full PDP process. > > > > Note that French, Spanish, and Portuguese > > translations of the > > attached documents will be available next week. > > > > All of these will be posted on the Wikis for the > > various regions as > > well and I will email those links when they are > > available. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Director, At-Large > > ICANN > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: > > nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > > Skype: nashtonhart > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Bored stiff? Loosen up... > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. > http://games.yahoo.com/games/front > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Information on the GNSO and Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear Community: Since I know many ALSes are not intimately familiar with the GNSO and the GNSO Policy Development Process, I have drawn up an informational document which describes both and includes the graphical representation of the process previously forwarded. I hope you will find this helpful, especially when you are considering the draft resolutions which in the current draft call for a PDP to be initiated. The attached will help you understand what that means, and the other avenues associated with, and connected to, the full formal PDP process which can also be used, or which can be complimentary to, the full PDP process. Note that French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of the attached documents will be available next week. All of these will be posted on the Wikis for the various regions as well and I will email those links when they are available. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Resolutions on Policy Matters for Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear At-Large Community: In order to facilitate discussion of the three resolutions being proposed for adoption in Lisbon, I have put them up on the Wiki as follows: Domain Tasting / Monetisation: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_1 Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 Internationalised Domain Names: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_3 NEXT STEPS: 1) I will incorporate, as separate revisions so that you can see the changes which have been suggested on the ALAC worldwide discussion forum, as individual edits. 2) I will reformulate them all so that they are structured similarly - to the maximum extent possible making no changes of substance in doing so - also in single revisions so that this is easy to see. 3) Once step 1 and 2 are done, I will translate the texts into French and Spanish - this will take a couple of days though. I will ask our faithful regional liaisons for Africa (Anne-Rachel Inne) and LAC Pablo Hinojosa then to help keep the updates to the English versions current with the French and Spanish versions once the translations arrive. Note that the idea is to adopt these in Lisbon. AS A RESULT INPUT IS NEEDED NOW FROM THE FOLLOWING REGIONS, SINCE THEY WILL NOT BE MEETING IN FULL SESSION IN LISBON like Africa and Europe: LAC North America Asia/Pacific IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ON ANY OR ALL OF THESE: For ease of reading please use the comment button at the top of the page. You may also send email to the pages of the wiki, which will then appear as comments at the bottom and show you as the person who made the comments. Here are links: Domain Tasting Contractual Compliance IDNS It is helpful if you copy the comment to the worldwide ALAC list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org as well so that everyone sees the new comment. If you haven't joined this list, I recommend you do so at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org These resolutions are scheduled for debate, amendment, and if consensus is achieved adoption in a combined meeting of the European, African, and the ALAC on 27th March between 13:00 and 18:00. Full agenda details for that meeting can be found at https://st.icann.org/ alac/index.cgi?second_session. There will be a remote participation facility for this meeting. Details for how to attend that way will be available on the url immediately above early this coming week. If you do not see links above, here is how to use the comment feature: Send an email to: alac(a)st.icann.org, and for the subject line, for domain tasting, use 'AL/2007/R/1' without the quotes, for Contractual Compliance, 'AL/2007/R/2', and for IDNs 'AL/2007/R/3' -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Draft Agendas for African, European, and ALAC Meetings in Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 13, 2007

March 13, 2007

Dear At-Large Community members: You can now find draft agendas for the At-Large community meetings online. The African and European regions are encouraged to discuss the agendas and propose changes. Note that the documents related to each agenda item will be uploaded as they become available and links to the documents will be found alongside the agenda items that they are associated with. The agendas can be found as follows: Africa: https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?icann_lisbon_meetings Europe: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?lisbon_icann_meeting At-Large Advisory Committee: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? alac_meeting_agendas In addition, you will find pages for nominations of regional leaders for Europe and Africa off of the meeting pages for each region. Those travelling to Lisbon should also subscribe via RSS to the Travel Information page, or check back often, as this page will be kept current with information about hotels, airport transfers, and mobile phone numbers to call in case of problems. We hope that these pages over the coming days help you to prepare for Lisbon and for those attending the Lisbon meeting we look forward to meeting you at the end of the month! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Geographic Regions Review
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 12, 2007

March 12, 2007

Dear Community: The following presentation from the Sao Paulo meeting may be useful, especially for those who are new to ICANN. It discusses why the current review of Geographic Regions in ICANN is important and what the regions are used for. I hope you find it helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review
by Thompson, Darlene March 12, 2007

March 12, 2007

Thank you, Nick! As one of the "newbies" I definitely appreciate short overviews such as this one to bring me up to speed! Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:00 AM To: Europe Discuss; Asia-Pacific Discuss; Carlton A. Samuels; Africa Discuss; LAC Discuss; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Dear Community: The following presentation from the Sao Paulo meeting may be useful, especially for those who are new to ICANN. It discusses why the current review of Geographic Regions in ICANN is important and what the regions are used for. I hope you find it helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN IDN Laboratory test results online
by John L March 11, 2007

March 11, 2007

>> Could somebody describe a possible 'failure scenario' for the tests? >> Siavash > > IANAE (I am not an expert), but what about, for instance, some code that > breaks somewhere because of the hyphen ("-") in the TLD? We had (and some > still exists) code that broke because of the length of the TLD, that was > assumed to be max. 3, with the exception of .arpa. Hypothetically, you're right, any of those might have happened if someone deliberately put anti-IDN code into the DNS software. But in reality, I'm sure the people who maintain the small set of packages they checked had already made sure they worked. It was a non-event. Where do we stand on the "too similar" issue? Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

2 1