- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Next NARALO Call / Rescheduled to Monday, 16 November 20:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

Dear All, The NARALO monthly call (originally scheduled for Monday, 9 November) will exceptionally be held one week later, on Monday, 16 November 2009 at 20:00 UTC. The draft agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?16_november_2009 You will receive additional reminders prior to the call. Thank you. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

The next NARALO conference call
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 4, 2009

Nov. 4, 2009

Hello everyone, I will be unavailable for the scheduled Nov 9 NARALO conference call, and Darlene will be on her first day back home after two long days of travel from Seoul. (She's still in Korea.) Would everyone be OK with a one-week postponement to Monday Nov 16? - Evan

5 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Sorry, I realize this topic has been dormant for a couple of weeks but I'm still a little unsure of ICANN's position. Alan wrote: <<(although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business).>> Acording to Kim it seems it would be. It has always been my understanding that soverignty trumps all in the ccTLD world, but Kim has been laying out a strucutre that has ICANN and the Internet community have the real say. If this is the case, does ICANN handle abuse issues for ccTLDs? If the answer is "no" then there are no responsibilities along with the rights and that is a problem. Evan has pointed out that "If there is a dispute between community and government, ICANN has ABSOLUTELTY NO business getting in the middle." but Kim has suggested otherwise. I'd like to know if Kim's statements are just his opinion or ICANN policy, and what the official ICANN policy is to ccTLD governance. This needs to be clarified. Also, I'm still deeply troubled by the fact that Kim is saying that ccTLD control comes from the "Internet community", of which many on this thread are suspicious of. The fact that Kim is citing statements no one can read as the basis for policy is, to be quite frank, creepy. Maybe we can discuss this on today's call. ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Tentative Presentations: Global Cyber Security Expo http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/ > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, October 06, 2009 1:09 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Evan had earlier said that there was little support on this list for > the current collaborative way of working. I was just about to speak > up and say that I, for one, support what has been happening. But > Antony said it far better, and with more direct knowledge, that I could have. > Going into this discussion, I had a fair amount of knowledge, both > direct and indirect, of how the process works when there is a > "difference of opinion". And I learned more from Kim and Antony's > early posts here. The only complaint that I have heard about the > process (in the real world, not on this list) is that it can take a > LONG time, not that it was not fair or that the outcomes were inappropriate. > Yes, there may be glitches along the way. And if the .MD operator > says on their home page that only their invoices should be honoured > and then immediately redirects any registration requests to a US > company, perhaps someone should make sure that this is intentional > and not a hijacking (although not completely sure if this is really > ICANN's business). > Back to the original discussion, having the authority for a ccTLD > unilaterally changed on what might be the potentially knee-jerk > reaction of a government is potentially VERY harmful to the > "operational stability, reliability, security, and global > interoperability of the Internet" - ICANN's Core Value # 1. Just try > to imagine how all of the second level domains (and their associated > information) that are currently operating on the ccTLD get migrated > to the new authority. I find it hard to imagine that uses within the > country or the world would be well served by the authority for a > ccTLD being transferred in a disruptive manner. And transfer in a > non-disruptive manner requires at least some measure of cooperation. > So ICANN's role is not to act as a political arbitrator within > sovereign nations. But its role IS is to try to ensure that ccTLDs > operate with stability and predictability. To date, it has a pretty > good track record of doing this. Although a review and possible > change in the process is welcome, I should be done based on careful > understanding of the overall environment. > Alan > At 06/10/2009 12:00 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote: > >Over the last ten years, governments and private enterprise have come > >together to make workable arrangements on how to manage their > >ccTLDs. This has been a long and sometimes difficult path, and yet > >the ccTLD area, once one of the most contentious in ICANN, is now > >largely quiescent and most people are happy. > > > >Your view of government control is not supported by the U.S. > >government, nor by any European government that I know of, nor indeed > >of any government that I've had the pleasure of working with. If you > >look at the GAC principles, which were composed by the governments of > >the world, they speak of a tripartite understanding between ccTLD > >operators, ICANN, and governments. The most extreme authoritarian > >dictator has not called for the level of totalitarian control that you > >seem to espouse. > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

4 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Thanks Danny, I'd say that makes it quite clear. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Mon, October 19, 2009 10:18 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Garth Bruen at > KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Garth, > It would be helpful if all parties to this discussion read the following three documents: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-1591-reflections-04 > regards, > Danny

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO Teleconference Monday, 19 October 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 19 October at 19:00 UTC (12:00 PDT and 3:00 PM EDT. Participation information and a proposed draft agenda are available at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?19_october_2009 If you require a dial-out, please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Statements
by Danny Younger Oct. 11, 2009

Oct. 11, 2009

Alan, I look at the other examples around us in order to evaluate the "effectiveness" of correspondence. The GAC sents a thoughtful Statement to the ICANN board and receives a 24-page response from the ICANN Chairman of the Board. What type of response do ALAC Statements usually obtain? At least with regard to the GAC Statements the ICANN Board knows that the documents submitted are the result of a community-wide process that leads up to a consensus formulation. Draft documents are evaluated at the local level, there is discussion on language revisions held at a working group level and those revisions are typically brought to the full membership for final ratification during a plenary. Contrast that process to what usually happens in the ALAC world where there is almost never any awareness of proposed ALAC statements at the ALS level, where proposed ALAC Statements are never discussed at the RALO level, and where discussion regarding these Statements is almost never present on the ALAC's own discussion list. The makeshift approach used by the ALAC to promulgate Statements has to be replaced -- it has outlived any usefulness that it might once have had.

2 1

Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09
by Joly MacFie Oct. 11, 2009

Oct. 11, 2009

*** Please feel free to email me off list with any egregious mistakes in my description below. Joly(a)punkcast.com *** Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? What: An ISOC-NY Forum When: Thurs Oct 8 2009 – 6:45pm – 8:45pm Where: Warren Weaver Hall NYU 251 Mercer St Rm 317 New York NY 10012 http://cs.nyu.edu/web/Location/directions.html Who: Dr Milton Mueller; Beau Brendler; Danny Younger Admission free: RSVP president(a)isoc-ny.org On Oct 1 2009 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) entered a new era as its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US Government expired and it became a truly independent global organization. In this forum we will examine the processes, currently in flux, of how we the people will get to participate in this new paradigm. The newly coined Articles of Commitment (AoC) state that ICANN will “operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act.” Currently there are two mechanisms by which the Internet using public are represented at ICANN. The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC aka NonComm) in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the At-Large organization.. The At-Large Advisory Council was formed, with official liaison status, as an interim measure in 2003 after the ICANN board had dispensed with direct public elections. In 2007 with the establishment of regional At-Large Organizations (ALO’s). the ALAC became permanent. ALO membership is open to all individuals and organizations can apply to become an At-Large Structure (ALS). In 2009 it was agreed that an ICANN board seat be allotted to the At-Large. The GNSO Council is ICANN’s primary body responsible for policy recommendations for generic top level domains. The board balances the GNSO recommendations with input from the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and liaisons from various technical groups, plus At Large (soon to be seated, as mentioned) plus the ICANN Ombudsman. Other constituencies in are, Business/Commercial, Registries, ISPs, and Intellectual Property. The NCUC, formerly the Noncommercial Domain Holders Constituency, has thus been, since ICANN’s inception, the sole voice of non-commercial users on the GNSO Council. As such it has taken to representing regular internet users’ concerns as well as those of registrants. Earlier this year ICANN proposed another re-organization, replacing the GNSO constituencies with two ‘houses’ – Contracted and Non-contracted, each of which was further divided into two stakeholder groups. Contracted has Registries and Registrars; Non-Contracted has Commercial (CSG) and Noncommercial (NCSG). 12 seats on the GNSO Council would be split thus: CSG 6; NCSG 6; Registries 3; Registrars 3. The former ISP, Business, and IP constituencies are to be folded into the CSG and presumably take two seats each. On the NCSG front: 3 seats have been alloted to the NCUC and 3 placeholders have been selected by the ICANN Structural Improvement Committee. The NCUC has argued against the plan insisting that it will only serve to further balkanize the GNSO process, and that practical policymaking would be better served by ad-hoc working groups than the proposed legislative approach. http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-pro… However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with them. The three speakers we are bringing together on Oct 8 represent widely differing views on how it is best to proceed in the public interest. It is sure to be a very lively and interesting discussion. We will webcast and there will be an opportunity for remote participation via a chatroom. More info: http://isoc-ny.org/?p=886 Speakers: Dr. Milton Mueller Milton Mueller is a Professor and Director of the Telecommunications Network Management Program at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies. He is the author of ‘Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace’ (MIT Press, 2002) – the definitive account of early Internet governance debates. Mueller was a co-founder of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and was chair of NCUC from 2003-2005. http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Beau Brendler: Beau Brendler is a journalist and consumer activist who takes a particular interest in Internet affairs. He was a founder and editorial director of ABCNews.com before moving to a fulltime position at the Consumers Union in 2001 where he launched Consumer WebWatch . He is an active member of the ICANN Community and serves on the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) . He has recently proposed the establishment of a Consumer Constituency within the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Danny Younger: Danny Younger has been involved with ICANN since at least 2001 including active participation on the General Assembly mailing list. He represented ISOC-NY in the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) from 2004-2007. He has for some time advocated for a single Registrants constituency within the GNSO. More info: ICANN Structure: http://www.icann.org/en/structure/ NonCommercial Users Constituency: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.icann.org/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------

4 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Statements
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 11, 2009

Oct. 11, 2009

Danny, it is no secret that although the ALAC and At-large have been more productive and effective during the last year than before, we still have a way to go. One of our largest problems is reacting quickly enough when official statements need to be made to enable a full level of consultation and buy-in. This is no secret and I and others are working towards doing a much better job. At least part of this is being able to make decisions and initiate work between ALAC meetings. In this particular case, the comment period started on Sept 8th. Perhaps we should have swung into action immediately, but we didn't. By the time of the ALAC meeting on Sept 22, two weeks had passed. The meeting decided to have the ExCom draft a statement, based on a summary of previous statements to be drawn up by staff. Perhaps this could have been done in a matter of days and submitted to the ALAC and At-large for comments. But due to real-world pressures it didn't. I guess it is a matter of opinion whether it was better to submit a statement (which generally follows previous At-Large statements and as you say you don't have any real problem with) or to be silent during the comment period. We are slowly learning how to decide that certain issues do not warrant an ALAC statement and that is progress. I have also suggested that going forward, we have an ALAC officer explicitly responsible for overseeing this process, including, where possible, looking at things BEFORE they reach the official comment period. This has been well received by a number of ALAC members and I have now forwarded it to the At-Large list. Hopefully we will continue to improve. I must note, however, that your reference to other groups' processes is not quite equivalent. Yes, the GAC and the SSAC have very well-defined processes and presumably they follow them to the letter. But I also note that they very rarely submit comments to the ICANN comment process. Perhaps in the case of the SSAC, most comment subject areas are outside of their purview, but in the case of the GAC, that is a harder case to make. Similarly, the GNSO at times has opinions but are rarely in a position to submit comments in the time allotted. GNSO constituencies, being smaller and more cohesive, do manage to respond in many cases. If ALAC and At-Large responded as infrequently as these other ICANN bodies, I for one would not be very happy. But the task is not easy, particularly with the (as I have said before) rather cumbersome hierarchical At-Large community that we have to deal with. Alan At 10/10/2009 09:50 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >Hi Cheryl, > >I'm sure that you understand that one of the primary points brought >forth in the Document Publication Operational Policy was the need to >provide ample time for document evaluation (at least fifteen days >for public review and download). It's a good policy. > >This leads one to ask: "How much time elapsed between the moment >this Statement/document was prepared and the time that it was >submitted?" Likely that timeframe was measured in minutes rather >than in days or weeks. > >Did ALAC members or anyone else have the opportunity to comment on >this Statement before it was submitted? It sure doesn't look like it. > >There is a value in having a set process in place by which >Statements are prepared, discussed, reviewed, ratified and >submitted. The GAC certainly has a well-defined process, as does the SSAC. > >All that I asked for was an explanation of the process by which the >ALAC generates Statements on behalf of the at-large community... > >please feel free to outline that process step by step that we might >better understand things like: > >1. at what point is a proposed Statement brought to the attention >of the RALOs for discussion and input > >2. how much time is allowed for discussion of a proposed Statement >before a vote occurs > >3. are votes required to affirm a Statement > >4. will Statements continue to be submitted to ICANN before they >are ratified by a vote > >in short, do you have any rules of procedure to govern the >formulation and ratification of ALAC Statements, or are you just >making it up as you go? > > > > > > > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability public comment period
by Edward Hasbrouck Oct. 8, 2009

Oct. 8, 2009

To be clear, my question is not "about the provision of more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the stated needs of the community." Translation is an ongoing issue, but I have not seen any such publicly stated "need" with respect to this issue in particular, any more than dozens or hundreds of other issues. More importantly, my question is *not* about the substance of the decision, which I would not oppose were a proposal properly made to the Board to open a second comment period, but solely about the identity of the decision-maker and the process and authority for their decision. An ongoing problem with ICANN's process has been the confusion of substantive and procedural issues, and the erroneous assumption that a good-faith belief in the merits of the outcome is sufficient to justify any defects in the process by which that outcome was or is reached. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck On 29 Sep 2009 at 11:31, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>> wrote: > Dear Edward, > > The decision to extend the comment period was taken with the agreement of > our legal counsel. I will refer your question to the Office of the General > Counsel since you believe this issue to be primarily about legal authority. > > I must admit this is the first complaint I've had about the provision of > more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the > stated needs of the community. > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell > > On 9/29/09 2:12 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> wrote: > > While these seem like reasonable grounds for a proposal to the Board for a > second comment period (or for re-opening comment on an almost infinite > number of previous decisions), I'm puzzled as to which member of staff had > this authority, and on what basis. Could you please send me the URL of the > minutes of the Board decision delegating to a member of the staff the > authority to overrule the decision of the Board setting the comment period > at 60 days, or of the provision of the Bylaws you believe gives that member > of the staff the authority to overrule such a Board decision? > > Sincerely, > > Edward Hasbrouck > > On 29 Sep 2009 at 10:47, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell > <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>> wrote: > > > Dear Edward, > > > > The Board has not voted to extend the comment period. The comment period > > has been extended by staff because translations of the proposed bylaws > > were finalised too late to allow non-English language users to > > participate fully in the consultation. The translated versions will be > > posted this week in five other languages, and a further two months of > > consultation time allowed to ensure everyone has the same chance to take > > part. > > > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell > > > > > > On 9/29/09 12:52 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> wrote: > > > > According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009: > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm > > > > "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed > > bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to > > allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their > > views." > > > > The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board: > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8 > > > > "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the > > possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional > > Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public > > comment:..." > > > > I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment > > period, or delegating authority to do so. > > > > Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

2 2

Next NARALO call / postponed by 1 week - NOW 19 October 2009
by At-Large Staff Oct. 7, 2009

Oct. 7, 2009

Dear All, Due to the October NARALO monthly call (orignially scheduled on Monday 12 October) conflicting with Canadian Thanksgiving, this months call will exceptionally be held one week later, on Monday 19 October 2009 at the same time of 1900 UTC. The draft agenda and call details can be found at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?19_october_2009 You will receive a reminder prior to the call. Thank you Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0