- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
by Carlton Samuels June 1, 2011

June 1, 2011

Evan made a useful intervention in noting the structural enablers for Danny's well-founded critique. And thanks to Alan, the rational context in which this is best evaluated was advanced. IMHO and to bounce the rubble, there are two issues that invite some focus if we are to address what Danny so unerringly identified. Assuming the ALAC shall remain a voluntary organisation and with most of us serving having real day jobs to make a living. And if the policy advice output is to be of high quality and retain the respect of the community: 1) The workload shall remain a challenge to manage if a few work hard while the majority remain hardly working. 2) Underscore a need for the ALAC to cut its coat to suit the cloth and cherry-pick issues we feel compelled to respond to. It is increasingly the ALAC Ex-Com (and co-opted Alan) that is now carrying the workload. And this is not a sustainable action. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Length of At-Large Comment Periods
by Danny Younger May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

As of late, I have noticed that when a Call for Comments is issued to the at-large community, the time-frame for providing comments in response to the Call is far from sufficient. Below I have listed the last eight Call for Comment cycles (announcement dates and comment closure dates are shown); the available time for comments can at best be described as a few days. A few days is simply not enough time for most individuals, and I can't imagine that organizational entities would take any comfort in the present arrangement. It would be appreciated if something could be done to improve the present situation. 1. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team Announced 01 April Deadline 03 April 2. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget Announced 04 April Deadline 04 April 3. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report Announced 20 April Deadline 22 April 4. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations Announced 22 April Deadline 29 April 5. Call for Comments: JAS WG Second Milestone Report Announced 08 May Deadline 09 May 6. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement Announced 11 May Deadline 15 May 7. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Academia Representation on NomCom Announced 20 May Deadline 25 May 8. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum Announced 20 May Deadline 22 May

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods
by Beau Brendler May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

Unfortunately this is not a new problem. And it's not limited to ALAC -- I have seen the NCSG having to respond with similar, ridiculous turnaround deadlines set by the GNSO. Here as there, it's as if volunteers are expected to drop whatever they are doing in order to comment on ICANN business, whether trivial or significant. I do not know what a solution would be. Some of the more cynical among us might assume bureaucratic intent on the part of ICANN? Analogous in some way to the old attorney's trick of burying one's opponent in a blizzard of paperwork the night before a hearing? We should thank Danny for raising this point so dramatically. It is a fundamental flaw in the system. One possible way of working within it is to firmly designate subject experts on a broad range of topics and delegate to them, with trust, the duty of drafting a core response as soon as the request is made, then giving the community a chance to comment on it, rather than just opening it up broadly and hoping someone comes forward with something to say. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> >Sent: May 31, 2011 2:57 PM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, 'Seth Greene' <Seth.Greene(a)icann.org> >Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods > >I think that Danny has raised an excellent point and I would like to hear from staff on this issue. > >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 Danny Younger >Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:51 PM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Length of At-Large Comment Periods > >As of late, I have noticed that when a Call for Comments is issued to the at-large community, the time-frame for providing comments in response to the Call is far from sufficient. Below I have listed the last eight Call for Comment cycles (announcement dates and comment closure dates are shown); the available time for comments can at best be described as a few days. A few days is simply not enough time for most individuals, and I can't imagine that organizational entities would take any comfort in the present arrangement. It would be appreciated if something could be done to improve the present situation. > > >1. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team > >Announced 01 April >Deadline 03 April > > >2. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget > >Announced 04 April >Deadline 04 April > > >3. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report > >Announced 20 April >Deadline 22 April > > >4. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations > >Announced 22 April >Deadline 29 April > > >5. Call for Comments: JAS WG Second Milestone Report > >Announced 08 May >Deadline 09 May > > >6. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement > >Announced 11 May >Deadline 15 May > > >7. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on Academia Representation on NomCom > >Announced 20 May >Deadline 25 May > > >8. Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on eG8 Forum > >Announced 20 May >Deadline 22 May > > > > >------ >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 >------

4 4

FW: [Secretariat] Letter of support for promoting non-English/non-Latinscripts in New gTLD Application Process
by Thompson, Darlene May 29, 2011

May 29, 2011

See below. 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: secretariat-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [secretariat-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl(a)gih.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:42 PM To: ALAC Working List; secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: ron Andruff Subject: [Secretariat] Letter of support for promoting non-English/non-Latinscripts in New gTLD Application Process Dear ALAC members and RALO Leaders, I have been contacted by Ron Andruff and Marilyn Cade, asking us whether we would like to affix our signatures on a letter to the Board supporting promoting non-English/non-Latinscripts in the New gTLD application process. This letter can be found on: http://icann.org/en/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-dengate-thrush-beckstro… There has been much individual support from members of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) working group as well as some ALAC members who have already signed the letter in their own capacity, myself included. If you would like to sign this letter in your own, or your ALS's capacity, please email your consent to: randruff(a)rnapartners.com Also please feel free to forward this call on your local RALO list, should you think ALSes in your regions might be interested in signing the letter. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Secretariat mailing list Secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/secretariat Secretariat wiki at: http://st.icann.org/secretariat

7 8

Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN International Public Meeting 42 in Dakar, Senegal
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 27, 2011

May 27, 2011

Dear All, Please note the following announcement of the opening of the Fellowship Application Round for the 42nd ICANN meeting to be held in Dakar, Senegal 23-28 October: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is now accepting online applications for the 14th round of the Fellowship program. Successful candidates will participate in the ICANN meeting to be held in Dakar, Senegal 23-28 October 2011. The Fellowship program is open to applicants who are current residents of developing and least developed nations and interested in participating in ICANN and its supporting organizations, constituencies and stakeholder groups. Priority is given to individuals new to the ICANN environment from government and the ccTLD community, as well as those from academic, civil, business and non-profit entities, which are NOT involved in or associated with other ICANN supported travel programs. The program provides the support and opportunity for these participants to gain knowledge on how to have their voices heard in the Internet community and ICANN. More information regarding terms and conditions, as well as eligibility is available online at http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ <http://icann.org/en/fellowships/> or email at fellowships(a)icann.org regarding any questions about this process or program. The Fellowship program arranges the airfare, hotel and a stipend for those individuals selected to participate in this ICANN meeting. Recipients are expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future. As always, registration for ICANN's meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend. Applications for the meeting in Dakar will be accepted from 00:00 UTC on 27 May 2011 until 00:00 UTC on 9 July 2011. The full announcement is available at: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27may11-en.htm. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Update on NomCom Activities Posted on ICANN Blog
by Eduardo Diaz May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011

Greetings Everyone! A brief note and FYI, about an hour ago an update on NomCom activities was posted on ICANN’s blog at: http://blog.icann.org/2011/05/update-from-the-nominating-committ<http://blog.icann.org/2011/05/update-from-the-nominating-committee/> Take a quick look to see what's being happening. Regards, -ed -- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 23, 2011

May 23, 2011

Colleagues, Ron Andruff has written a response to my comment which the list software bounced has he's not a subscriber to the na-discuss list. It appears below. Eric > Subject: > RE: A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter > From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> > Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:05:00 -0400 > To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams'" <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net>, <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Eric, > > Thank you for your reasoned analysis. In response I can say that I share > your apprehension that 'competition policy concerns remain unaddressed', but > believe that those issues can be addressed ONCE the critical issue of > bundling is on the table. Until we can get staff to at least look at this > deficiency, the cards are stacked against those applicants that wish to > serve end-users' needs simply because budgets will constrain them. > > It should be well-noted that the current AGB allows any entity that has > multiples of USD 185,000 to apply for multiples of the same string in other > scripts/languages. This makes no sense, as you well point out. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. >

3 4

Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, proposed contract extension for multiple technical providers
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Colleagues, I'm submitting two comments, the SECOND of which follows, proposing contract extension for multiple technical providers. The public announcement is here: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm If anyone wants to co-sign, you'll have to explicitly let me know. I'll be submitting the comment around 9am EDT tomorrow. Begin: The proposed changes to the .NET agreement, while of some utility, do not address the core problem of monopoly power by the registry operator. This is a hold-over from the May 1999 decision to create a locus of competition in a separate registrar function, a decision reversed in November 2010. The contract should be changed to include language which separates the formal Registry Operator (RO) functions (zone file signing, zone file production from one or more distinct data sources, pointer data to registrar held "thin registry" registrant data, registrar transfer processing, registrar invoicing, ICANN reporting and transactional fee processing and payment), from the Data Base Operator (DBO) (aka "registry technical services") set of functions, allowing registrants, through their registrars, to select the underlying competitive DBO for a given domain. The means to allow the .NET contract to be modified, allowing a second, and subsequent Data Base Operators to provide database service to the Registry Operator, is now necessary, in light of the removal of structural separation requirement for legacy contracts. No specific set-aside for ROOT-SERVERS.NET is necessary under a stability and security theory, as the root server operators are capable of designating whether they seek to use a DBO other than the current unique DBO. An additional extension to EPP will be necessary, to allow registrants to select, through the registrar function, their choice of DBO to have custody of their data. It is possible that the registrars with a large number of domains, or other mature database operators, including the operators of other registries, also currently contractually constrained as monopolies, will seek to become Competitive Data Base Operators (CDBOs) for the .NET registry, transforming over 10% of the gTLD domain market from monopoly to competition. The default choice of many users may remain Verisign, the legacy monopoly registry entity. However, where competition is possible, and competition among back-end registry service providers within a single name space is possible, it must be allowed if the competition policy goal is to be achieved in the current decade. End To be sent to net-agreement-renewal(a)icann.org. Forward as you see fit. Eric

6 10

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, proposed contract extension for multiple technical providers
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Joli, You wrote: > In 2002 Verisign, which had in 2000 purchased the ... registries This isn't quite correct. The contract had been single-source, non-competitive, and awarded to SRI. It was put out for competitive bid and won by the anticeedent of NetSol. Cheers, Eric

1 0

NA-Discuss web archive SSL error
by Joly MacFie May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

I was just looking for a weblink to an old NA-Discuss post via http://archive.atlarge.icann.org/lurker/list/na_discuss.en.html and I get an SSL error.. The site's security certificate is not trusted! You attempted to reach *archive.atlarge.icann.org*, but the server presented a certificate issued by an entity that is not trusted by your computer's operating system. This may mean that the server has generated its own security credentials, which Google Chrome cannot rely on for identity information, or an attacker may be trying to intercept your communications. You should not proceed, *especially* if you have never seen this warning before for this site. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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