- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Very interesting reading: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/house-hearing-testimonies Not sure I totally agree, but a reasonable assessment nonetheless.

1 0

Shorter Naralo Video
by Glenn McKnight Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Hi I shorten the Draft Naralo Video http://youtu.be/tF4lXc-Ifw4 Glenn -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

2 1

Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Beau Brendler Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

JJS' wording is particularly elegant and appropriate, I agree. As noted before, Olivier, Evan and Heidi have really done the work on this, if there is time to get it in, I'm sure they will give it a shot BB -----Original Message----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Sent: Dec 14, 2011 3:01 PM To: JJS Cc: Beau Brendler , "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" , ALAC Working List , ICANN AtLarge Staff , na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee I absolutely agree with Jean Jacques. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:42 AM, JJS <[1]jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: *Congratulations, Olivier & Beau, on a timely initiative. The remark on Esther's presentation set things straight.* * * *I would like to offer a general remark, which may be worth adapting for future public messages (never mind the wording, I'm suggesting a notion, not a draft): * * * *While recognizing the historic role played by the United States of America in the construction of the Internet, we note that its pertinence in the future depends on its ability to serve and protect the general user anywhere in the world. So, whereas we follow with great attention hearings in the two legislative houses in Washington, it is the duty of the ICANN, and of the ALAC, to impress upon legislators and the executive branch in all countries that the touchstone of future Internet development is and should remain the public interest. In parallel, we wish to draw the attention of legislators in the USA to the fact that, because their conclusions and choices regarding the Internet have the potential to affect users elsewhere, US initiatives and laws should seek to be compatible with the public interest internationally.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * 2011/12/15 Beau Brendler <[2]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > That's the Mexico City statement? Might not be a bad idea. Oliver and > Heidi are really the ones who have done the heavy lifting here, and I know > time is of the essence, so I leave it to them as to whether a reference of > this sort can be included > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <[3]gbruen(a)knujon.com> > >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 12:20 PM > >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <[4]ocl(a)gih.com>, > [5]na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, ALAC Working List < > [6]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <[7]staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Beau Brendler < > [8]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & > CommerceCommittee > > > >Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's > >statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. > > > >The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to > >testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups > >who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on > >the new gTLD program is/can be found..." > > > >Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but > >the message should be on point with the subject matter. > > > >-------------------------------------------------- > >From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[9]ocl(a)gih.com> > >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM > >To: <[10]na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List" > ><[11]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <[12]staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & > >CommerceCommittee > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding > >> hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate > >> Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing > >> by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec > >> 14th -- i.e. today). > >> Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept > >> comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included > below. > >> > >> Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, > >> NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the > >> Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via > >> two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. > >> > >> Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but > >> rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in > >> ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it > >> will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. > >> > >> We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of > >> Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, > >> should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the > >> witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what > >> gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is > >> required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Olivier > >> > >> On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : > >>> An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling > >>> of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. > >>> > >>> There are two different hearings > >>> > >>> 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation > >>> <[13]http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) > >>> After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send > >>> comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 > >>> > >>> 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee > >>> > >>> < > [14]http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> > >>> (to be held Dec 14) > >>> After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to > >>> send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) > >>> > >>> > >>> So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate > >>> hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before > >>> Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in > >>> the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing > >>> this Wednesday. > >>> > >>> We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee > >>> after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content > >>> of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate > >>> committee. > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [15]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [16]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [17]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [18]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [19]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [20]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [21]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [22]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 References 1. mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com 2. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:gbruen@knujon.com 4. mailto:ocl@gih.com 5. mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 6. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 7. mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org 8. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 9. mailto:ocl@gih.com 10. mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 11. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 12. mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org 13. http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH 14. http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134 15. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 16. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 17. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 18. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 19. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 20. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 21. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 22. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee
by Beau Brendler Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

I agree. The structure is baroque; such a diagram may have an unintended consequence. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 2:16 PM >To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee > >On 14 December 2011 12:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks OCL I wonder though as you have gone to the second page with >> the layout is it worthwhile inserting the ALAC and At-Large Structure >> diagram as a easy to read and understand graphic on the last (2nd ) page >> below the signature line as a form of 'appendix' You know pictures are >> worth a <insert ###> of words rule... >> > > >I'm not sure that such an introductory letter needs much explanation, let >alone diagrams. We're simply indicating "A forum to represent the public >interest within ICANN currently exists, if you're genuinely interested in >hearing that PoV". > >The mere awareness -- especially if we get on a mailing list to participate >in future solicitations of comment -- is a major step. If a Congressperson >wants to peek inside the sausage factory we can give offer as much (or as >little) detail as necessary. > >Besides, this is the US Congress within an amosphere of political >exceptionalism. Any interest in the geographical diversity of At-Large >(IMO) would be accidental. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Beau Brendler Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

That's the Mexico City statement? Might not be a bad idea. Oliver and Heidi are really the ones who have done the heavy lifting here, and I know time is of the essence, so I leave it to them as to whether a reference of this sort can be included -----Original Message----- >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 12:20 PM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee > >Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's >statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. > >The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to >testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups >who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on >the new gTLD program is/can be found..." > >Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but >the message should be on point with the subject matter. > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM >To: <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List" ><alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & >CommerceCommittee > >> Dear all, >> >> there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding >> hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate >> Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing >> by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec >> 14th -- i.e. today). >> Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept >> comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below. >> >> Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, >> NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the >> Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via >> two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. >> >> Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but >> rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in >> ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it >> will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. >> >> We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of >> Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, >> should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the >> witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what >> gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is >> required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : >>> An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling >>> of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. >>> >>> There are two different hearings >>> >>> 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation >>> <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) >>> After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send >>> comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 >>> >>> 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee >>> >>> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> >>> (to be held Dec 14) >>> After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to >>> send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) >>> >>> >>> So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate >>> hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before >>> Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in >>> the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing >>> this Wednesday. >>> >>> We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee >>> after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content >>> of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate >>> committee. >>> >>> >>

1 0

Fwd: EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship
by Joly MacFie Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

I am seeing a bit of a backlash against this on the NANOG list as being overly propagandistic. j ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Last year, EFF organized an open letter against Internet censorship legislation being considered by the US Senate (https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter) Along with other activists efforts, we successfully delayed that proposal, but need to update the letter for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are close to passing through US Congress now. If you would like to sign, please email me at pde(a)eff.org, with a one-line summary of what part of the Internet you helped to helped to design, implement, debug or run. We need signatures by 8am GMT on Thursday (midnight Wednesday US Pacific, 3am US Eastern). Also feel free to forward this to colleagues who played a role in designing and building the network. The updated letter's text is below: We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it. Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation. Today, we are writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate. In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to read last year. If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences. In exchange for this, such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' right and ability to communicate and express themselves online. All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals. In fact, it seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE seizures program. Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and security problems. This is true in China, Iran and other countries that censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship. It is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS, proxies, firewalls, or any other method. Types of network errors and insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government. The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government. When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or control. We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance as a design requirement for new Internet innovations. This can only damage the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power over what their citizens can read and publish. The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive. Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills aside. -- Peter Eckersley pde(a)eff.org Technology Projects Director Tel +1 415 436 9333 x131 Electronic Frontier Foundation Fax +1 415 436 9993 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Fwd: [CommLawBlog] ICANN's New Uniform Rapid Suspension System
by Joly MacFie Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Some good advice.. http://www.commlawblog.com/2011/12/articles/intellectual-property/icanns-ne… Once it’s finally implemented, the URS will provide a very streamlined process, considerably faster and cheaper than the UDRP (and vastly faster and cheaper than the litigation route). With the availability of such a process, trademark holders now have more incentive to take steps to protect their most important identifiers. I’m not advocating that every business flood the USPTO with trademark applications for any catchphrase or nickname that comes to mind. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that, at a minimum, unique business names and prominent “brands” be protected with federal registration. Let’s say, for example, that you’re a radio station owner. You have one major identifier: your call sign. You may also have a key slogan that you feature even more prominently that your call – something like “Hot 99 - Rocking the Valley”. And maybe you also have some wacky morning drive DJs using locally-popular personas that you helped create and cultivate (f’rinstance, the fictional but awesome“Crazy Ira and the Douche”<http://www.nbc.com/parks-and-recreation/exclusives/crazy-ira-and-the-douche…>). A federal trademark application costs $275 to file, not including a couple of hours of legal time, give or take, to put together and file. You could probably register all three of the identifiers – call sign, slogan, character names – for well under $5,000. And that protects you for 10 years, as long as you continue to use the marks in question and maintain your registrations. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

5 6

Fwd: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post
by Joly MacFie Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

As mentioned in the meeting here was my response to Esther's posting to the IP list. Farber has not, as yet, elected to forward it. He is anti-GTLD expansion too. I snipped the attachments which were Esther's testimony and the WP article. j ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: WWWhatsup <joly(a)dti.net> Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post To: dave(a)farber.net Cc: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Hi Dave, Esther says: ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except its own coterie of registries, > registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory, it's accountable to the public, > but the public pays no attention.... The truth is that Esther herself has paid no attention during the six years of process that has led to the new gTLD program. She ignores the roles of the NonCommercial Stakeholder Group, the At-Large Advisory Council, and, most importantly, the Government Advisory Council - all representing the public in one form or another - in forging the rules. The North American Regional At-Large Organization, incidentally, is unique amongst the regions in that it is open to participation by individuals - http://naralo.org. Also, there have been long fought out battles within the "coterie" - you can bet that the trademark lawyers had plenty of input. This culminated in a series of public hearings worldwide where voiced public outrage shot down such concepts as a global trademark reserved list. As for accountability, ICANN still operates under an agreement with the United States Government under which it guarantees accountability and transparency. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/icann In fact, Larry Strickling of the NTIA addressed the issue on the very same day as the Senate hearing. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… Here is what he said: For example, at ICANN, a multistakeholder process that ran for six years > resulted in the approval last summer of an expansion of top level domains. > This process involved global stakeholders from the business community, > civil society, registries, registrars, and governments. At NTIA, we worked > throughout the process to make sure that ICANN adequately addressed > government concerns and we have also spent significant time the last two > years pushing for overall improvements in ICANN’s accountability and > transparency to the global Internet community. > > Nonetheless, we are now seeing parties that did not like the outcome of > that multistakeholder process trying to collaterally attack the outcome and > seek unilateral action by the U.S. government to overturn or delay the > product of a six-year multistakeholder process that engaged folks from all > over the world. The multistakeholder process does not guarantee that > everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. But it is critical to > preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to > date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the > outcome once a decision is reached. When parties ask us to overturn the > outcomes of these processes, no matter how well-intentioned the request, > they are providing “ammunition” to other countries who attempt to justify > their unilateral actions to deny their citizens the free flow of > information on the Internet. This we will not do. There is too much at > stake here. > > But we are sensitive to the concerns being raised by some companies about > the introduction of new gTLDs. Today, Chairman Rockefeller held an > important oversight hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on the subject > of how ICANN will expand top level domains. We agree with the Chairman’s > concerns over how this program will be implemented and its potential > negative effect if not implemented properly. We will closely monitor the > execution of the program and are committed to working with stakeholders, > including U.S. industry, to mitigate any unintended consequences. On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Esther Dyson <edyson(a)edventure.com> > Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM > Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post > To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > Cc: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> > > > Dave - > > Thanks so much for reposting this. I know everyone is concerned (and > justly) about SOPA right now, but ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except > its own coterie of registries, registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory, > it's accountable to the public, but the public pays no attention.... So, > everyone, please pay attention! In 5 years, people will use Google et al. > instead of URLs anyway, but in the meantime a TLD 1 percent is going to get > rich by confusing and "protecting" the 99 percent. > > <snip> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >

3 2

Minutes today NARALO
by Glenn McKnight Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Meeting+Notes+Dec+12%2C+2… -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

2 1

U.S. House Hearing Wednesday -- NPOC statement
by Beau Brendler Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Note that, in addition to being asked to testify (http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00064.html) the NPOC is preparing a statement for the congressional committee, due tomorrow afternoon. The NPOC appears to be speaking for the NCSG if I read the notes correctly. The YMCA's IP person was their rep to the committee. Perhaps this was discussed at the ALAC-NPOC handshake meeting, I don't know, I wasn't there. BB -----Original Message----- >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Sent: Dec 12, 2011 11:56 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] U.S. House Hearing Wednesday > >So, here are the details of the hearing: >http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134 > >There is a list of committee members here: >http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/members.shtml > > > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:34 AM >To: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs > >> The feeling I keep getting is that the A&T and other reform kind of stuff >> is ready to be given to us .... AFTER the gTLD goldrush is dome, after all >> the bad consequences are in place, and we can then have a wonderfully >> transparent (and associatedly long, inconclusive and probably gamed) >> process for cleaning up the mess. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> >> On 12 December 2011 10:11, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> >>> > I agree that the accountability and transparency still has a long ways >>> to go. But I think it has improved and is improving - albeit too slowly. >>> So I agree that is something we definitely have to keep pushing on. >>> Make >>> them live up to the promises made. >>> >>> Agreed, so long as we're saying that they still need to fix the A and T >>> first, then do other stuff. There are plenty of nice people working at >>> ICANN, but as an institution it has a great deal of trouble doing what it >>> says it's going to do, for anything that doesn't lead directly to >>> revenue. >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> ------ >>> 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 >>> ------ >>> >> ------ >> 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 >> ------ >> >------ >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 >------

2 1