- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Meeting Invitation / NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 9 July 2012 @ 19:00 UTC
by Thompson, Darlene July 4, 2012

July 4, 2012

I got it! 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> From: Annalisa Roger [mailto:annalisaroger@dotgreen.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 12:19 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Glenn McKnight; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Meeting Invitation / NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 9 July 2012 @ 19:00 UTC Hello, I would like to add: North American new gTLD applications Wondering what NARALO's position is if any? annalisa On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>> wrote: Thank you Glenn, Does anybody else have anything to add to the agenda? Thanks! 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<tel:%28867%29%20975-5631> Fax: (867) 975-5610<tel:%28867%29%20975-5610> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca<mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca> -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Glenn McKnight Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 8:24 AM To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Meeting Invitation / NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 9 July 2012 @ 19:00 UTC Hi All I would like to add two items to the list 1. Update on the Survey 2. Report on the NomCom meeting Thanks Glenn On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:10 AM, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>wrote: > Dear All, > > The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 9 July 2012 at > 19:00 UTC. > > For other times: > http://tinyurl.com/cg8fmxl > > > The agenda (TO BE UPDATED) and call details can be found at: > https://community.icann.org/x/2RAQAg > > Adobe Connect: > http://icann.adobeconnect.com/naralo/ > > > NARALO Wiki Space: > https://community.icann.org/x/N5Qi > > If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: > mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. > > Thank you. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and > Nathalie Peregrine > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ -- Annalisa Roger, Founder/CEO Cell: 415.730.5736 DotGreen 300 Drakes Landing, Suite 220 Greenbrae, CA 94904 Office (415) 925-1012 Fax (415) 925-1063 twitter.com/annalisaroger<http://twitter.com/annalisaroger> www.dotgreen.org<http://www.dotgreen.org> Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you! Also: The information in this e-mail may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail in error, please e-mail the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Toronto Funding Event
by Glenn McKnight July 4, 2012

July 4, 2012

Hi Just a reminder that my notes for the working group are on the NARALO WIKI as to the update on last week's meetings with CIRA, Afilias and Google. G -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

Metered Internet Article
by Glenn McKnight June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/business/media/internet-providers-testing… SAN ANTONIO — The broadband era began with the expectation that Internet connections were like buffets — all you can eat, 24 hours a day. But users are now being prodded to think about how much they’re consuming. Related - Times Topics: Time Warner Cable Inc.<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/time-warner-cable-inc…> | Computers and the Internet<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/computers_an…> Add to Portfolio - Time Warner Cable Inc<http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/bus…> Go to your Portfolio »<http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/portfolio/view/view.asp#sda> Readers’ Comments Share your thoughts. - Post a Comment »<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/business/media/internet-providers-testing…> - Read All Comments (119) »<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/business/media/internet-providers-testing…> Here in South Texas, Time Warner Cable<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/time-warner-cable-inc…> customers have been given the online equivalent of a scale in the bathroom, a “usage tracker” that adds up all the household’s Facebooking and YouTubing. Customers who sign up for a light plan of 5 gigabytes of broadband — that’s the equivalent of two high-definition movie downloads — are rewarded with a $5 discount each month if they don’t go over. If they do, they pay $1 for every additional gigabyte. “We’re moving away from one-size-fits-all,” said Jon Gary Herrera, a Texas spokesman for the cable company, which now tends to call itself a broadband company instead. Some of Time Warner Cable’s competitors are moving the same way, slowly but surely, toward tiers of pricing for higher speeds and bigger amounts of broadband at home, mimicking the wireless industry’s much-maligned pricing plans. The strategy, called usage-based billing, is advantageous for the companies that control the digital pipelines. But it may be detrimental for customers who are watching more and more video on the Web every month, as well as companies like Netflix that distribute it. Some fear that as customers become more aware of how much broadband they’re using each month, they’ll start to use less of it, and in that way, protect traditional forms of entertainment distribution and discourage new Internet services. Executives at cable and broadband providers dispute that by saying it is in their interest to make broadband a must-have product. “The exploding growth of online video usage undercuts any argument that cable is standing in the way of this business,” said Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the industry’s trade group. But some government officials aren’t so sure. The Justice Department’s antitrust lawyers are conducting an investigation<http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/justice-department-said-to…> into the cable industry’s treatment of online video companies with an eye toward deterring anticompetitive behavior. Some analysts say the investigation could, perhaps counterintuitively, accelerate the move to usage-based billing. As online video use soars, customers just want faster and better broadband service, and they complain (online, naturally) when Web pages or videos take too long to load. Kate Miller, a Time Warner Cable customer in Utica, N.Y., said her 2-year-old daughter Jane has already learned the word “buffering.” “Elmo,” Ms. Miller said, “was never meant to buffer.” There’s a clash between what users expect from broadband service and what is actually delivered to them, said Chris Balfe, the president of Glenn Beck’s media company, which created an online TV channel nearly a year ago. He has noticed sluggishness at home when trying to view YouTube videos. “As a broadband video provider it’s frustrating, but as a user it’s absolutely infuriating,” he said. Usage-based billing is seen by some as a fairer alternative to broadband caps, a term most closely associated with Comcast, which had been enforcing a limit of 250 gigabytes per Internet customer per month. Although only a small minority of customers ever exceeded the cap, it became a lightning rod for competitors like Netflix, which accused Comcast of unfairly favoring its own services. Comcast said this spring that it would start to test usage-based billing. “Our network is not an infinite resource, and it is expensive to expand it,” David L. Cohen, a Comcast executive, said at the time. Along with news and entertainment, the futures of entire industries — commerce, health care and transportation — are being built atop a broadband foundation. Companies big and small are coming up with ways to get faster broadband to more people; many people believe that broadband speeds will But others say that the marketplace lacks sufficient competition, which keeps the price of broadband — a high-margin product — higher than it otherwise would be. They wonder whether strategies like usage-based billing will worsen what is already an economic barrier for some Americans. “It’s like locking the doors to the library,” said Nicholas Longo, the director of Geekdom, a new collaborative work space for small companies in San Antonio. Geekdom will pay almost any price for reliable broadband — that’s a critical piece of what it sells to start-ups that pay for work space. But some of the start-ups fear that changes to broadband pricing will tamp down consumer demand for the new products they’re conceiving and testing. “If we had an unlimited pipe, there’s so much more we could do,” said Yuri Zapuchlak, a co-founder of Vidmaker, a video editing tool that exists “in the cloud,” meaning that the videos are uploaded and downloaded from the Internet in real time. For now, the Vidmaker software works around the limits of wireless and wired Internet access by breaking off the chunks of video that are going to be edited and uploading only those chunks. Time Warner Cable started testing usage-based billing in San Antonio four months ago by offering the $5 discount to lighter users. Customer service representatives at a suburban call center are now trained to ask new customers about how they use the Web; once uses (listed on a work sheet) like “Internet gaming,” “watching TV/movie clips” or “video chat” are mentioned, callers are steered toward a pricing plan with unlimited bandwidth. For now, unlike the 5-gigabyte plan, the unlimited plans have no overage charges. But the provider, and others like it, could change the pricing plans if many people begin to drop cable TV— essentially making up for losses on the television side by making broadband more expensive. Such changes to pricing, if they occur, would happen gradually and carefully, executives say privately. But they are already working to change consumer expectations. Suddenlink, a home broadband provider in 18 states, sells usage-based plans tied to speeds, so customers who choose faster, pricier broadband speeds also have more bandwidth to use. The company calls them “allowance plans.” One of Comcast’s tests will be structured that way. In another test, customers will get a monthly allotment of 300 gigabytes a month (enough for roughly 100 movies) and will pay more for additional “blocks.” The Netflixes of the world are wary of these moves, though there may be little they can do. Concerns about both caps and usage-based billing have already caused one would-be online video competitor, Sony, to rethink its plan to sell a bundle of cable channels over the Internet. Dish Network and other companies have been preparing plans for similar bundles, which could help cause the so-called unbundling of television that consumer advocates have dreamed about for decades. But “these guys have the pipe and the bandwidth,” said a Sony Network Entertainment executive, Michael Aragon, referring to cable and broadband providers, while speaking at a meeting sponsored by Variety in April. Still, Mr. Aragon added, “We do believe there’s a business model out there.” inevitably improve as time goes on, just as computer chip speeds have. -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

2 1

Antique car tours of downtown Prague
by Glenn McKnight June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

Hi All I shot two short interviews with two entrepreneurs who are providing for 1200 Ch Crowns( Roughly $60) a tour of the city The contact information is mentioned in the short interview VIntage Car tours in Prague, Ch Skoda Car http://youtu.be/tf6HLNesIkA capacity four with driver 1928 Praga Car Toiur http://youtu.be/9ZINMbvptPw <http://youtu.be/9ZINMbvptPw> capactiy five with driver -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

Gioconda Law Group Sues Canadian 'Cyber Security' Developer (domain squatter)
by Joly MacFie June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

(via Lauren Weinstein) Gioconda Law Group Sues Canadian 'Cyber Security' Developer (domain squatter) http://j.mp/NpkVmY (JD Journal) "However, the Gioconda Law Group alleged that according to recent discoveries, it had found that Kenzie had registered an internet domain name GiocondoLaw.com as a misspelling of GiacondaLaw.com. Then Kenzie had proceeded to create fake e-mail accounts to intentionally intercept private e-mails addressed to the firm's lawyers and staff. Giaconda said, "We discovered the cybersquatting and sent several test e-mail messages to see if they were delivered to the misspelled e-mail addresses, and indeed, they were received by active mailboxes." Kenzie had initially tried to conceal his identity, but complaints to the Internet Registrar exposed him. According to the lawsuit, Kenzie is similarly harvesting misspelled e-mails intended for many major corporations without their knowledge or permission including MasterCard, McDonald's, NewsCorp and McAfee." - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Strickland's June 15 Keynote
by Carlton Samuels June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

He does make all the right notes. Comforting to see Uncle Sam seemingly on the side of the WHOIS Review Team. I for one'd like to see further and better particulars in this area. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:00 AM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Strickling Jun 15 keynote - ICANN section (Joly MacFie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:33:17 -0400 > From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Strickling Jun 15 keynote - ICANN section > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > <CAM9VJk3_dJx-qhdez+OBMnZcmiUQKp34KLaKJDTrD3pk5Lv==w(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > *Jun 15 Keynote Speech by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of > Commerce for Communications and Information U.S. Chamber of Commerce > Telecommunications and E-Commerce Committee * > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2012/keynote-speech-lawrence-e-stri… > > <quote> > > Let me turn next to the current situation at ICANN. ICANN represents a > practical working model of the multistakeholder approach to Internet > governance. When I signed the Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN in > 2009, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to the ICANN model and > its mission to preserve a single, global interoperable Internet that > supports the free flow of information and global electronic commerce. > > The Affirmation was historic because it established mechanisms and > timelines for the multistakeholder review of ICANN?s execution of its core > tasks. What had once been a unique role for the U.S. government was > expanded to include the participation of the international community > through review teams. This model of enhanced global cooperation on Internet > public policy issues offers a constructive example for the continuing > international debates about Internet governance. > > In 2010, I served on the first of these review teams which focused on > evaluating ICANN?s accountability and transparency. Our team, which > included representatives from the governments of China and Egypt as well as > representatives from South America, Europe and Australia, made a series of > recommendations to the board, all of which were adopted. ICANN will soon be > reporting out on the implementation of these recommendations and a second > accountability and review team will convene next January to evaluate > ICANN?s performance in integrating the recommendations into the culture of > the organization. > > NTIA?s commitment to expanding participation in Internet governance was > tested earlier this year with respect to the IANA functions contract. Last > year, in anticipation of the expiration of the IANA functions contract, > NTIA undertook two consultations of stakeholders, both domestic and > international, on how to best enhance the performance of the functions. > Based on input received from stakeholders around the world, we added new > requirements, including the need for a robust conflict of interest policy, > heightened respect for local country laws and a series of provisions to > increase transparency and accountability. Earlier this year, we took the > unprecedented action of cancelling the initial request for proposals (RFP) > because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the > global community. We then reissued the RFP and I am hopeful that whatever > responses were submitted more clearly satisfy the needs of the global > Internet community. > > It should be clear from my comments that while NTIA continues to be a > strong supporter of ICANN?s multistakeholder approach, we do not shy away > from offering constructive criticism and speaking bluntly about the > challenges facing ICANN and the improvements it is needs to make. In the > end it only makes for a stronger ICANN. In that regard, a lot has been said > in the last seven months here in Washington, DC regarding ICANN?s new > generic top-level domain name (gTLD) program. While we have defended the > process used to reach the decisions regarding the program, we have listened > and are sensitive to the concerns expressed by some stakeholders about the > potential for unintended consequences of the expansion. The details of the > 1,930 applications were revealed two days ago and NTIA, along with our > interagency partners, are actively reviewing the list of strings and the > publicly available information associated with each application. Now that > the facts are in front of us, we will meet with stakeholders in July to > discuss, among other things, if additional protections are warranted at the > second level. > > In addition, we continue to believe it is critical that ICANN complete > three work streams that will further enhance the tools available to law > enforcement and consumer protection officials as the new gTLD program > unfolds. The first of these is a strengthened Registrar Accreditation > Agreement that takes into account the proposals of law enforcement agencies > as endorsed by ICANN?s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Second is the > need for ICANN to address a range of deficiencies in the implementation of > WHOIS policy. Third is the need for ICANN to fully staff and enhance > ICANN?s contract compliance division. Among other things, ICANN needs to > take steps to centralize and automate the complaint process as well as make > it more transparent by the end of the third quarter 2012. > > I want to emphasize that as we raise these concerns with ICANN, we do so > respecting the multistakeholder processes of that organization. We bring > our concerns to the GAC and discuss these issues with other governments to > formulate formal advice to the ICANN board as set out in its bylaws. We > have worked hard in ICANN to strengthen the role governments have, as one > group of stakeholders at ICANN, to demonstrate to governments that they can > be heard and their issues dealt with in this multistakeholder process. I > believe increasing the meaningful engagement of governments in > multistakeholder organizations such as ICANN is one of the strongest > arguments we have, and indeed is a necessary precondition, to opposing the > views of some nations to have international intergovernmental bodies > replace multistakeholder organizations in important areas of Internet > governance. > > </quote> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
by Beau Brendler June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

Certainly. Set an agenda that leaves handwringing, etc. off the list, and then set a specific agenda and demonstrate leadership to stick to that agenda. But fear of hand-wringing, in and of itself, is not an excuse not to try. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Jun 19, 2012 2:54 PM >To: 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan(a)telly.org>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery > >I agree with Evan and I would certainly support a meeting with NCUC to discuss this matter if there is any kind of action that can be taken. Like Evan, I find hand-wringing and complaining to be a waste of my valuable time. If it is a strategy meeting with actions to move forward, then I'm all for it. > >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 Evan Leibovitch >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23 PM >To: Beau Brendler >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery > >I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me). > >There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday. > >One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue. >> From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a >> public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other >> words, I agree with the NCUC. >> > >There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in tactics. > >I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital archery is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than choosing order of processing". The issue is what to do about it. > >The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may in fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and try something different. In fact, I've already suggested two alternative methods, though one of them may attract gaming attempts<http://diggy.wordpress.com/2007/03/07/how-to-win-a-jellybean-counting-conte…> >. > >What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was: >- how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its method -- was a matter of public interest >- what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call attention to the reputation botch) > >Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully ICANN botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any constructive recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to look at the only two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and community -- as deserving of priority in any new batching system. But unless we have something new or novel to add, we'd just be adding to the existing cacophony of protest. > >Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a specific action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There is some flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to simple joint complaint sessions without an end game. > > >Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto. >> > >There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here. > >And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together? >> We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted >> in the well-attended Internet Town Hall. >> > >While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy useful for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand wringing, zero action items resulting. There was debating on which speakers had more credibility than others when discussing Internet access blocking in Africa. And most of it was about issues far outside ICANN's realm. So if the target is doing another meeting like what happened in SF, I'm personally not interested and would not attend. We're not IGF. > > >> Just a thought -- strength in numbers. >> > >Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result, provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all. > >- Evan >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

4 3

Strickling Jun 15 keynote - ICANN section
by Joly MacFie June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

*Jun 15 Keynote Speech by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information U.S. Chamber of Commerce Telecommunications and E-Commerce Committee * http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2012/keynote-speech-lawrence-e-stri… <quote> Let me turn next to the current situation at ICANN. ICANN represents a practical working model of the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. When I signed the Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN in 2009, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to the ICANN model and its mission to preserve a single, global interoperable Internet that supports the free flow of information and global electronic commerce. The Affirmation was historic because it established mechanisms and timelines for the multistakeholder review of ICANN’s execution of its core tasks. What had once been a unique role for the U.S. government was expanded to include the participation of the international community through review teams. This model of enhanced global cooperation on Internet public policy issues offers a constructive example for the continuing international debates about Internet governance. In 2010, I served on the first of these review teams which focused on evaluating ICANN’s accountability and transparency. Our team, which included representatives from the governments of China and Egypt as well as representatives from South America, Europe and Australia, made a series of recommendations to the board, all of which were adopted. ICANN will soon be reporting out on the implementation of these recommendations and a second accountability and review team will convene next January to evaluate ICANN’s performance in integrating the recommendations into the culture of the organization. NTIA’s commitment to expanding participation in Internet governance was tested earlier this year with respect to the IANA functions contract. Last year, in anticipation of the expiration of the IANA functions contract, NTIA undertook two consultations of stakeholders, both domestic and international, on how to best enhance the performance of the functions. Based on input received from stakeholders around the world, we added new requirements, including the need for a robust conflict of interest policy, heightened respect for local country laws and a series of provisions to increase transparency and accountability. Earlier this year, we took the unprecedented action of cancelling the initial request for proposals (RFP) because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community. We then reissued the RFP and I am hopeful that whatever responses were submitted more clearly satisfy the needs of the global Internet community. It should be clear from my comments that while NTIA continues to be a strong supporter of ICANN’s multistakeholder approach, we do not shy away from offering constructive criticism and speaking bluntly about the challenges facing ICANN and the improvements it is needs to make. In the end it only makes for a stronger ICANN. In that regard, a lot has been said in the last seven months here in Washington, DC regarding ICANN’s new generic top-level domain name (gTLD) program. While we have defended the process used to reach the decisions regarding the program, we have listened and are sensitive to the concerns expressed by some stakeholders about the potential for unintended consequences of the expansion. The details of the 1,930 applications were revealed two days ago and NTIA, along with our interagency partners, are actively reviewing the list of strings and the publicly available information associated with each application. Now that the facts are in front of us, we will meet with stakeholders in July to discuss, among other things, if additional protections are warranted at the second level. In addition, we continue to believe it is critical that ICANN complete three work streams that will further enhance the tools available to law enforcement and consumer protection officials as the new gTLD program unfolds. The first of these is a strengthened Registrar Accreditation Agreement that takes into account the proposals of law enforcement agencies as endorsed by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Second is the need for ICANN to address a range of deficiencies in the implementation of WHOIS policy. Third is the need for ICANN to fully staff and enhance ICANN’s contract compliance division. Among other things, ICANN needs to take steps to centralize and automate the complaint process as well as make it more transparent by the end of the third quarter 2012. I want to emphasize that as we raise these concerns with ICANN, we do so respecting the multistakeholder processes of that organization. We bring our concerns to the GAC and discuss these issues with other governments to formulate formal advice to the ICANN board as set out in its bylaws. We have worked hard in ICANN to strengthen the role governments have, as one group of stakeholders at ICANN, to demonstrate to governments that they can be heard and their issues dealt with in this multistakeholder process. I believe increasing the meaningful engagement of governments in multistakeholder organizations such as ICANN is one of the strongest arguments we have, and indeed is a necessary precondition, to opposing the views of some nations to have international intergovernmental bodies replace multistakeholder organizations in important areas of Internet governance. </quote> -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
by Beau Brendler June 19, 2012

June 19, 2012

Greetings. Being a member of the NCSG I received this planning note regarding the draft NCUC agendas for Prague. With apologies for cross posting, I wanted to raise two points: One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an issue. From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other words, I agree with the NCUC. Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto. So, I ask: Rather than remaining in silos, is there anything we can do to a) reach out to the NCUC on digital archery, in case some of us are of the same opinion, with the possibility some joint support can be lent? And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something together? We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted in the well-attended Internet Town Hall. Just a thought -- strength in numbers. Beau -----Forwarded Message----- >From: William Drake <william.drake(a)UZH.CH> >Sent: Jun 19, 2012 1:29 AM >To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCUC meeting agenda > >Hi Adam, > >Thanks, good points. Worth bearing in mind though that we've also started the tradition of doing NCSG policy meetings Monday mornings, as well as NCSG Tuesday afternoon sessions, where we can tackle such items as policy input opportunities & discussion of possible statements in the OF, Board meeting, comment periods, etc. So the questions is, what's the best division of labor across the three meetings. I'm inclined to think it best if the two constituency meetings do their respective administrativa & a basic ID of stances but then talk through GNSO policy issues together on Monday & Tues afternoon, but maybe there's a better configuration…? > >We also have a meeting with ALAC Monday after our policy meeting, 11-12. And probably a small coffee with NTIA folks that afternoon, sometime after the Internet governance session. So lots going on… > >On Jun 19, 2012, at 6:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> I think it would be a good idea to discuss digital archery, batching etc. See letter from GAC to Board, attached. >> >> Digital archery was meant to objective and fair, seems (and this worth checking) that it is possible to provide solution that will consistently get within a couple of milliseconds of the target time. And that's a service applicants have to pay for: unfair. >> >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45OrB-VJdcA> Pool and others offer similar. >> >> Implications of the GAC's letter: >> >> "Given the delays to the gTLD application process, the timing of upcoming ICANN meetings, and the amount of work involved, the GAC advises the Board that it will not be in a position to offer any advice on new gTLD applications in 2012. > >Isn't there a half a year left in 2012? > >> For this reason, the GAC is considering the implications of providing any GAC advice on gTLD applications. These considerations are not expected to be finalised before the Asia-Pacific meeting in April 2013." >> >> worth a chat. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> This is a draft Agenda for the NCUC Constituency meeting on Tuesday morning of next weeks Prague meeting. This is the agenda that will be published on the website, but of course we can adjust the agenda based on participant priorities (and the outcomes of prior meetings such as the NCSG Policy Committee meeting on Monday). >>> >>> I'm interested to hear feedback from NCUC membership. In particular: >>> What policy issues would you like to discuss during this meeting? (and note that some issues, including the ICRC/IOC/IGO special exemptions and the RAA negotiations, will be discussed during the NCSG meeting in the afternoon, and substantive discussion may be better there) >>> and do you think the balance between policy issues, and organisational issues such as Outreach and capacity building, is right, or would you rather change the balance? >>> >>> 9:00 - 9:30 - Introductions, Discuss Agenda. >>> 9:30-10:00 - Outreach and membership >>> 10:00-10:15 - Toronto Outreach event planning >>> 10:15:10:30 - Charter and Elections >>> 10:30-11:00 - Coffee break >>> 11:00-11:30 - Policy updates from GNSO councillors >>> 11:30-12:00 - Policy discussion - ICRC/IOC/IGO special exemptions, new gTLD issues, RAA >>> 12:00- 12:30 - Any other business >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> David Cake >>> NCUC Interim Chair >> <pdfgSYXe0qA07.pdf>

4 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
by Beau Brendler June 19, 2012

June 19, 2012

1 0