- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

video of 26:37m of ALAC + Kurt Pritz, June 24 (was: Re: quora)
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 26, 2011

June 26, 2011

Danny, As promised, a video from the cheap seats of some of the ExCom meeting, now up using my autistic son's account (and better videographer) at youtube. More later, I've another 40 or so min of similar footage, but from the seat next to the chair (my camera holding arm got tired). Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZfxmAReOcA Eric

1 0

quora
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

Danny, I was physically present at the ALAC meeting referenced in your comment on Community Travel Support Guidelines. My presence there was accidental, as a resignation had taken place in the very recent past, creating a re-allocation-or-loss question, and the applicant support policy was "of the moment", and so the support was offered to me. The set of incidences goes further, as for personal reasons it was both a difficult decision to make, and it resulted in an out of pocket expense of some significance, to repace myself in the caretaker role I was engaged in prior to travel to Singapore. My presence there was further accidental in that while I was not a quora-capable person, the process of the ALAC executive and the set of substantive issues, which included a vote on a resolution relating to the co-operaton of the GAC and ALAC on the applicant support issue, did interest me, so I was present. There were circumstances -- the bathrooms were several minutes distant, and to get from the ALAC (and GAC) rooms involved passing through the distraction rich vendor exhibit area. Bladder control, schmoozing with GAC member, schmoozing with the better or worse of the for-profit actors, and the location and social cost of coffee (see "schmoozing", above) are credible -- to me -- explinations of the absence in the first minutes of the second (or third) of a back-to-back meeting schedule. But assuming no credible excuse or bad faith on the part of those not available for form a quora in the first minutes of that meeting, your means to compel a cure has consequences. I would not be here, and what ever little I've personally managed to initiate, support, enhance, detract, or stop, relaing to applicant support, I would not have been able to accomplish, had I chosen not to accept the complex personal cost of participation, or had the travel support not been re-allocated, or simply not available to be allocated. If I thought my week without merit, I would say so, as I really do have other demands on my time in the present -- elder care pre- and post- major surgery, care for my profoundly autistic pre-teen son, academic work, farm work, co-op work, and simply not sweating bullets when out of doors. I can't agree with the recommendation to impose a moratorium on all at-large travel support. I wouldn't agree with it even if I thought a quorum call had been missed by deliberate, reflected choice, as I know that some persons I know better than others who do receive travel support more regularly than I (another loss of primary travel support recipient allowed me to attend the Cartagena meeting, where my primary interest was expanding the protection of informed consent or expression of non-opposition to non-capital municipal administrations) are working as hard or harder than I am during the 8 or so days of face to face meetings with others, not from the At Large Advisory Committee, who are engaged in policy work. To be very blunt, given the efficacy of policy advocates who have material support over those that do not, and here my point of view is one informed by having material support in 2000/2001, 2002, 2004, and 2007-2010, representing the advoacy interests of NeuSar, several funded .org and .net redelgation applicant efforts, a registrar, and a registrar-also-registry-platform operator, no meaningful "public interest advocacy" would be possible under the restriction proposed. It is a fact that presence and persistence in that presence is more determinative of outcomes than any other alternative. I'd like to see ICANN limit the number of bodies vendors can staff their advocacy efforts with, before cutting the public interest travel support, if some travel support reform is to be made. Thank you for your time in reading this rather lengthy, and more than usually personalized public note of difference to a public comment, the legitimacy of which I question not at all. Eric

3 2

Draft FY 12 Community Travel Support Guidelines
by Thompson, Darlene June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

I would like to draw your attention to comments that Danny Younger posted in the ICANN public comments in regards to the Draft FY 12 Community Travel Support Guidelines and my response thereto. Danny Younger's Comment: I draw the community’s attention to the primary purpose of the Travel Support Guidelines, namely to “advance the work of ICANN”. Yesterday I remotely participated in an ALAC meeting where a vote was being conducted. Quorum was barely reached as a large number of ALAC members that we financially supported to attend such meetings chose not to be present. This is not the first occasion of travel-supported ALAC members being noted as missing-in-action. It has become a pattern. Needless to say, I am thoroughly disgusted by such behavior. I have certain expectations. Just as I expect certain other communities (such as the registries and registrars) to either police their own behaviors or face the prospect of regulations being foisted upon them, so too do I expect the at-large community to engage in self-policing. To date, whatever measures the at-large community has taken to ensure that travel-support recipients are actually engaged in “work” have not been effective – abusive behavior continues unchecked and wastes the resources that have generously been allocated. I am of the view that ICANN must now step in to forcefully deal with this situation as community self-policing efforts have clearly failed. My own recommendation would be to impose a moratorium on all at-large travel support until such time as the ALAC develops a policy to effectively deal with the abuses in its own camp. My response: I would like to publicly respond to Danny Younger’s comment. I was at the meeting he referred to. At the ALAC vote, nine out of fifteen of the ALAC members were present. Of the six that were not present, three were not in Singapore and did not receive travel support (Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Gareth Shearman and Marc Rotenberg). The people who received travel support in their stead were present at the meeting but did not have voting privileges. Mohamed El Bashir was not present at the meeting because he was ill with food poisoning but gave his support to the vote by e-mail and Carlton Samuels was in another meeting. This leaves but one person unaccounted for. I am against all measures that Danny Younger suggested as he obviously wrote his comment before he gathered the relevant information. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

1 0

EFF Brief on USG/ICE Website Seizures
by Danny Younger June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/puerto80_v_US/2011-06-20-rojadirecta.pdf

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] about FY 12
by Thompson, Darlene June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Hi all, I think that Sylvia brought up an interesting point for another reason. When we start discussing the FY 13 budget, NARALO will be requesting funding for a GA and I assume we will get the same amounts as allocated to the three RALOs during the FY 12 budget (6 participants for a total of $25,000). Frankly, I really do not want us to be limited to "6" participants. Rather, I would prefer that we be allocated "$25,000" (which is the amount inserted into the FY 12 budget for each RALO in that year) and lets see how far we can make it stretch. We have members who live very close to Toronto (where the meeting will be held) and would not need full travel funding (perhaps just perdiems and hotel rooms). If we are allocated a specific dollar figure, we could stretch it to include more people than just 6 people. I don't think that travel in North America costs quite as much as it does in other regions where you are going from country to country and often can't get to one point to the other directly. Just my 2 cents worth, D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl(a)gih.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:47 AM To: sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org Cc: juan.ojeda(a)icann.org; ALAC Internal List; lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] about FY 12 Dear Sylvia, thank you for your kind email. I think that Juan explained the process when he met with us on Sunday. The number of "6" ALS members was an offer since the total number of ALS members could not be funded due to lack of funds in this Financial Year. The discussion has since then moved on, and I would be happy to review this with you at your convenience. Warmest regards, Olivier On 21/06/2011 14:16, sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org wrote : > Dear Juan > > I was thinking about the information you presented on Sunday about the > budget. As you know the limit of 6 ALS members for a GA is quite a problem > for us. > > In order to be able to start thinking about alternative solutions that may > be acceptable to ICANN, however, we need some more information. > > How did the Budget team arrive at the number of 6 ALS representatives? Was > there a specific budget amount allowed for the GA? Were there financial > assumptions for a travel budget? I would like to ask if it is possible to > know what was the process that you have used to reach that number. > > If we have more information about the decision processes that led to the 6 > ALS determination, we will be much better suited to develop alternative > options. > > Regards, > > Sylvia > > Descrição: Assinatura_Sylvia_Internautabrasil > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

FW: IETF Fellowship Announcement (IETF 82 and 83)
by Thompson, Darlene June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

FYI Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: cracin-canada-owner(a)vancouvercommunity.net [cracin-canada-owner(a)vancouvercommunity.net] on behalf of Dessalegn Mequanint [dessalegn_m(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:34 AM To: ciresearchers(a)vancouvercommunity.net; CRACIN Canada discussion Subject: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] [Fellowalumni] IETF Fellowship Announcement (IETF 82 and 83) Dear Colleagues, The Internet Society has announced that it is inviting applications for its latest Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF, part of its Next Generation Leaders (NGL) programme (www.InternetSociety.org/Leaders<http://www.internetsociety.org/Leaders>). The Fellowship programme allows engineers from developing countries to attend an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting. As you know, the IETF is the Internet's premier standards-making body, responsible for the development of protocols used in IP-based networks. IETF participants represent an international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers involved in the technical operation of the Internet and the continuing evolution of Internet architecture. Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive application process. The Internet Society is currently accepting fellowship applications for the next two IETF meetings: * IETF 82, 13 - 18 Nov 2011, Taipei, TW * IETF 83, 25 - 30 March, Paris, FR http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship/index.php Fellowship applications for both IETF meetings are due by 15 July 2011. I encourage you to pass on information about this program to individuals involved in your network that have a keen interest in the Internet standardisation activities of the IETF. The Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF are sponsored by Afilias, Google, Microsoft, and Intel. The Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme is sponsored by Nominet Trust, the Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (AFNIC), SIDN, and the European Commission. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Steve Conte <conte[at]isoc[dot]org>. Kind Regards, Steve Conte Internet Society ----- Steve Conte conte(a)isoc.org<mailto:conte@isoc.org>

1 0

APRALO SHOWCASE: MONDAY, 20 JUNE 2011, AT 2:30 PM
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

APRALO Showcase At ICANN’s 41st International Meeting in Singapore APRALO cordially invites you to its Showcase! Bencoolen Foyer (on Level 4) Raffles City Convention Centre 80 Bras Basah Road, Singapore 189560 Monday, 20th June 2011 >From 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. (local time) ____________________________ Highlights will include: A keynote speech by Professor Ang Peng Hwa<http://research.ntu.edu.sg/expertise/academicprofile/pages/StaffProfile.asp…>, Director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre<http://www.sirc.ntu.edu.sg/Pages/default.aspx> at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University Topic: Internet Governance and the Role of APRALO A speech by Rajnesh Singh, Director of the Asian Regional Bureau of ISOC Topic: From the Start of APRALO to Now Presentations by APRALO At-Large Structures (ALSes) ____________________________ Coffee and refreshments will be served Looking forward to seeing you there! Pavan Budhrani APRALO Secretariat

1 0

Decertification of an ALS
by Alan Greenberg June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

There was a discussion at the NARALO meeting today on the need for rules and processes to decertify an ALS which no longer exists or is no longer active. Here are the procedures that are currently on the books. From the ALAC ALS appliation and certification procedure (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/framework.htm) 7. Decisions to de-certify an ALS shall require a 2/3 majority of the members of the ALAC who cast a vote as provided in the Rules of Procedure of the ALAC, and any decertification decision shall be subject to review as provided in the ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2. Reasons for the ALAC to pursue de-certification action, and to de-certify an ALS, may include persistent non-compliance with significant ALS requirements. The ALAC will provide advance notice to the ALS in question, and the ALS will have an opportunity to be heard and respond to the ALAC prior to a decision on de-certification. The ALAC will notify the ALS of its de-certification decision and provide information on requesting a review of the decision. I. Minimum criteria for an At-Large Structure: 1. Commit to supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions. 2. Be constituted so that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which the ALS is based will predominate in the ALS' operation. The ALS may permit additional participation by others that is compatible with the interests of the individual Internet users within the region. 3. Be self-supporting (not rely on ICANN for funding). 4. Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership, working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s). 5. Assist the RALO in performing its function. From the NARALO Operating Procedures (https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Operating+Principles+NA-2…) 16. When an ALS representative does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the At-Large discussion lists in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS should be notified of the status change and may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next 12 months it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. So the current rules for us are: - Since we don't tend to have many votes or elections, 12 months of inactivity can trigger losing its active status. Assuming they are notified of this, 12 months later, the NARALO chair can request that the ALAC decertify the ALS, which requires a 2/3 vote to pass. I note 2 things: - For an ALS that no longer exists, we could institute a new procedure to effect the decertification faster, but it is not clear that for most ALSs, there is any way of definitively saying that it no longer exists. - Based on rule 16, I suspect that MANY NARALO ALSs could be put in the non-active status. If we apply this rule inconsistently, we could in theory have problems (but in practice probably not). I guess our real target is to get such active participation from all of our ALSs. Alan

3 2

Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion
by Seth Greene June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Hello, NARALO members, A wiki page has been created for this statement. It includes Beau's draft, and comments can be added below it using the "Add Comment" function: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/Statement+on+Pre-Registra…. This might make it easier to keep the comments together and revise the document. Many thanks, Seth ______ Seth Greene Interim Manager, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723 E-mail: seth.greene(a)icann.org ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Beau Brendler [beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:01 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion Yes, I understand that objection -- I'm not sure I really got my own point across. I am hoping someone who has some knowledge of how Verisign used pre-registration 10 or more years ago to capture market share might help us out here on that part of the draft, because it's that I was trying to refer to... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Jun 10, 2011 7:25 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion > >I agree with the general sentiment of avoiding confusion -- more, and >more accurate information is better. > >I disagree with the sentences below, specifically as regards >"artificially creating demand." If the service acts as an indication of >demand, we can dispute its accuracy (lots more people may "pre-register" >if its free than might pay money for a registration, or vice versa, they >might not want to show their hands early) but I don't think it's >insidious for that reason. I see nothing wrong with letting people try >to measure or justify demand for new TLDs however they like. > >On 06/10/2011 06:24 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> While United Domains says the pre-registration service is free and non-binding, the NARALO is concerned the offer of such a service could create artificial demand which could then be used to justify additional rounds of TLD creation and release, or might serve to confuse consumers. > >Thanks, >--Wendy >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 >Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >https://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ >http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ ------ 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 ------

5 12

Re: [NA-Discuss] Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Colleagues, I was surprised to hear in the most recent JAS call, the GAC express a current interest in applications from public administrations of urban areas, and the fees for which these public administrations will be liable. For those who hold the belief that a geographic association such as the name of an urban area will not work, how do you distinguish between the urban and the region? If .nyc is "a bad idea (tm)", what kind of an idea is .quebec? They are both political jurisdictions, both mid-sized in the population and average income among the existing entities holding, for better or for worse, iso3166 delegations, and both having functioning administrations. Or are both "a bad idea (tm)", and for the same reason? Prior to joining NARALO I was the CityTLD Constituency Petitioners' appointee (or stuckee) to the GNSO's Operations Work Team, so I've some interest in why people think city governments, which appear to be adopting RDF, linked data stadards, sematic web notions, etc, will not use namespaces. Thanks in advance for you thoughts, Eric

3 2