- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement on Future Structure and Governance of ICANN
by Evan Leibovitch May 19, 2009

May 19, 2009

Hello everyone. ICANN staffer Maria Farrell recently wrote a letter to the ALAC announce list, scolding At-Large for missing one of ICANN's typical too-tight comment deadlines. In a moment of pique I wrote the response below. Before I send it in my capacity as NARALO chair, I would like to receive feedback on both its content and appropriateness. Personally I'm simply fed up with complaints like this that we can't play the game as well as the vested interests. And ... to At-Large staff ... are Maria and other ICANN staffers not alterted in advance when ALAC statements are to be submitted past their deadlines? I thought that was the case, - Evan --------------- Maria Farrell wrote: > In the future, I would be most grateful if you could follow the agreed procedure for submitting public comments to an ICANN consultation; i.e. posting them to the correct location within the time agreed. This is the only way to ensure equity between all contributors and allow us to complete the overall process in a timely manner. > > I understand that it can be a challenge for diverse groups to get comments agreed in time. However, other contributors with similar internal consensus-building processes to fulfill, including the GAC, various government authorities and trade associations, submit their input on time and/or appraise the relevant staff beforehand if there is going to be an issue. > Hello Maria, Respectfully, if the above statement conveys your true sentiment then you do not, indeed, understand At-Large. At-Large, by definition, does not include bodies with financial interest in ICANN outcomes. It has no business models, national interests, or property to protect. Its members primarily do not have English as their first language, let alone the technical jargon that more often than not pervades ICANN policy debate. They do, however, attempt to represent more than 99% of the community affected by ICANN decisions. During my brief history within At-Large I have seen countless similar misunderstandings of At-Large's most difficult role within ICANN. These misunderstandings are manifested through unrealistic deadlines, and other expectations that are based on the assumption that we can move as quickly as governments and lobbyists with interests to protect. When was that last time that At-Large was ever consulted in advance on whether a deadline was reasonable? Some of these misunderstandings, arguably, are institutionalized deep within ICANN. To a casual observer, the idea that ICANN's "public participation" mechanism is distinct and separate from the component that works with At-Large is astounding. If ICANN claims of public transparency and accountability are to be seen as more than a facade, then perhaps it's time to better recognize -- throughout the organization -- that the challanges of At-Large are both different and substantially more complex than those of governments or vested interests. Sincerely, Evan Leibovitch Chair, NARALO

6 7

Inadvertently distributed text of a draft letter
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 19, 2009

May 19, 2009

Dear All: In my reply to Evan, I copied the public ALAC working list as well as Denise and Maria, as the original note went to the latter two. Unfortunately, the text of a draft note which Evan was considering sending about the matter to Maria, but which he on advice decided not to send, was then sent on to the very person (and those reviewing the ALAC public list) he had decided not to send it to. My apologies to Evan, NARALO, and Maria! As Evan reminded me, it is often a bad idea to forward emails from one list to another, especially if the contents reflect a discussion which has not reached maturity. As I told Evan, from the At-Large staff's side, we shall refrain from doing so again, a continuation, really, as we have not to my recollection ever done it in the past. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Summary minutes 11 May NARALO Teleconference
by ICANN AtLarge Staff May 15, 2009

May 15, 2009

Dear All, The summary minutes, action items and audio recording of the recent NARALO monthly teleconference have been uploaded to the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?naralo_meeting_of_11_may_2009 You can also find the summary minutes attached below. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes 11 May 2009 The Summary Minutes 20 April 2009 were adopted per consensus 1. Recall procedure in NARALO Operating Principles Recall Procedures - draft 2.doc Glen move for the draft to be adopted and Garreth seconded the move. The text was unanimously adopted, and had previously been agreed online through the discussion list. Garreth asked what was meant by 'General Assembly' when applied to the recall procedure. Glen Mc Knight explained that he meant when the ALS converged and met. H Ullrich pointed out that, officially speaking, the meaning of 'GA' is not a monthly teleconference as the GA takes place only once a year. She will check the definition of 'General Assembly' in the NARALO Ordinary Rules of Procedures and will examine the ICANN bylaws to make sure that the recall draft complies with them. It was reminded that the definition for a 'quorum' depends on the type of the meeting and the details about that point are also in the Rules of Procedures. Darlene said that NARALO should consider rewriting or abolishing the Rules of Procedures as they are clashing with the NARALO Operating Principles at some points. Originally, they were drafted in haste in 2007 and aimed only at protecting the meeting from a potential takeover. D Thompson will work with Garreth and Evan on an update of the current NARALO Rules of Procedure and the draft will be sent to the NARALO list for online discussion. H Ullrich will help comparing the two documents. S Reiss agreed that the 'quorum' was not addressed properly in the current NARALO Operating Principles and there needed to be a definition for it in order for the ALSes to be able to conduct business. The 'rough consensus' only determined whether a vote passed or not, but did not per se give authority to conduct business. H Ullrich will ask Nick Ashton-Hart to specify to NARALO members how they should interpret the procedures. 2. Regional Advice for Papergate - Update (Darlene) Three week ago, H Ullrich sent an email to Papergate but they have not answered to it. D Thompson and E Leibovitch will inform Papergate that their application will be rejected by NARALO and ask them to withdraw their application. 3. Open Public Comment Periods: (All open public comments) Selected open public comment periods: IRTP Draft Report (ends 20 May 09) New IDNgTLD Constituency Petition and Charter (ends 20 May 09) New Consumers Constituency Petition and Charter (ends 14 May 09) Travel Support (ends 24 April 09) Proposed Registrar Disqualification Procedure (ends 28 May 09) Report on Improving Institutional Confidence Plan (ends 11 May 09) Garreth said there were 5 votes for ALAC during the last week and he had to read the documents referring to them and had voted in favour of these ALAC statements. H Ullrich informed about the two upcoming teleconference calls with Kevin Wilson on the ICANN travel guideline on 15 and 16 April. Details of them on the announce list. IRTP public comment period will be open till 24 May. ALAC has already submitted its comment. 4. Sydney Meetings schedule Plans are going to be finalized. There are quite a few At-Large meetings planned in Sydney (see on Icann Web site - Sydney ICANN meeting page) At-Large Meeting Schedule The regional secretariat meeting is planned on Thursday between 12 and 13 but some RALOs want to extend the session to include some further in-depth discussions. Any questions for travel and visa contact will be attended in English or in French at: constituency-travel(a)icann.org For BCD travel and tickets information: email to veronica.demartini(a)bcdtravel.com) 5. Developments in other RALOs a. APRALO has developed a Google map page. APRALO, AFRALO, EURALO, are developing strategies for outreach to get more ALSes and more effective policy-making. NARALO agreed to develop a Google map page for the region. b. In EURALO, W Ludwig and D Greeve have developed a new dynamic working tool that will be used for exchanging information with the ALSes and about events in the region that EURALO plans to attend to. ALSes will make short speeches about ICANN activities at events planned in their towns and will hand out Start-off packs with short information about ICANN and EURALO to potential ALS members. NARALO is also interested in developing a start-off pack for their potential ALSes. c. AFRALO - Survey of ALSes and Capacity Building Working Group H Diakite conducted a survey on the AFRALO ALSes's self-assessments and wrote a report outlining their problems and giving recommendations. Another team elaborated a document with plans on how to improve the capacities for the region. {link: AFRALO Rapport Auto-Evaluation rev 1.HDdoc-EN.doc) Capacity Building Working Group - {link: Capacity Building Working Group - ICANN May 2009.doc) AFRALO now plans to make a presentation of this document at the secretariat meeting in Sydney. 6. Adobe Connect Chartroom (see: Adobe Connect Resource Page) Adobe. Connect is an efficient tool for sharing documents and exchanging comments. Kevin Wilson used it for his presentation on the draft framework and was able to actually control the changing of each slide during his teleconference with ALAC. The Adobe Resource page offers a set of training courses. NARALO members are encouraged to visit the tutorials. H Ullrich will arrange for the technical staff to give an overview of the benefits and functions of that tool during the next NARALO teleconference. She suggests having 30 minutes training session before the teleconferences to cover a new issue each time. NARALO should discuss online the aims and objectives of their communication tools prior to the overview session. 7. Recent activities of ALAC (Alan, Beau, and Gareth) Garreth commented on the five votes held by ALAC in the last week and a half. Mostly, they concerned the final votes on the working groups from Mexico City as these were left open for input from the rest of the At-Large community who were not at Mexico. Garreth has voted in favour of all these ALAC statements. Sydney preparation was also evoked.

1 0

Today's NARALO meeting
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

My apologies. I planned to attend and it was on my calendar, but have no excuse other than I lost track of the time. Alan

2 1

Comments on the IRT report
by Brendler, Beau May 8, 2009

May 8, 2009

Unfortunately I have only been able to get to reading the IRT report over the last couple of days. I have some personal comments to make, or they can be appended to the ALAC statement. I made my attribution flexible at the bottom (member of at-large or member of the proposed consumer constituency). May I ask whoever is heading up the ALAC comment to let me know if you want to include this? If not, I will send it myself to the public comment URL by end of business today. Thanks Beau Comment on Draft IRT Report Speaking as the organizer of the proposed consumer constituency to the GNSO under consideration for charter, I want to say I appreciate the IRT group’s inclusion of several issues of consumer concern in its draft report: * The need to minimize abusive and speculative registrations, seeking to temper the proliferation of cybersquatting, typosquatting, link farming and other Internet junk clutter. * Use of a global protective marks list to help limit consumer confusion in circumstances in which a consumer might be fooled into taking an action or making a purchase of fraudulent and possibly harmful goods and services. * Consideration of a uniform rapid suspension system. I also applaud the group’s understanding that certain behaviors of trademark violators go hand in hand with other bad behaviors. The most harmful of phishing frauds, for instance, hijack well-known trademarks as they seek to spoof and defraud consumers. However, I have some concerns as well. First, I think the IRT group was conceived inappropriately. One of its goals was to consumer protection. Several resources in the ICANN community exist to provide direct input from consumers and consumer groups. However, the IRT constructed itself in a closed manner, excluding participation from, at least, several individuals in the at-large. In this way, I think the IRT was constructed in a way that does not represent ICANN’s multi-stakeholder, consensus approach. Given how easy it would have been to include such consumer perspectives in the process, I think the IRT shot itself in the foot in terms of credibility. Unfortunately, the draft report reflects the group’s homogenous construction. Had consumer groups been invited to participate, we would have sought common ground and supported some of the IRT’s suggestions as having global application and reach toward consumer protection. Instead, the IRT report focuses primarily on creation of a discrete “clearinghouse” that seeks to address intellectual property community issues to the exclusion of others, while creating possibly yet another level of bureaucracy that may or may not obstruct the registration process. In addition, in respect to suggestion of uniform rapid suspension: Certainly there could be benefits to consumers, in light of limitations in the relatively antiquated UDRP process. But why should intellectual property interests be granted their own suspension mechanism? Why not a suspension system that takes into account other parts of the ICANN community? If the ICANN community is to consider an IP rights issues clearinghouse, and a new type of IP suspension system, then these should be implemented with the consideration and input of other members of the ICANN community. We as consumers, in fact, would not support creation and adoption of the clearinghouse, or the URS, unless they were opened to a broader group. Beau Brendler [Proposed] Consumer Constituency ALAC representative, At-Large ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

3 2

REMINDER: NARALO Call Scheduled for 11 May at 19:00 UTC
by At Large Staff May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Dear All, This is to remind you that there is a NARALO teleconference scheduled for Monday, May 11th at 19:00 UTC (12:00 noon PDT/3 p.m. EDT). Please find the proposed agenda and participation information linked to the meeting page at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?naralo_meeting_of_11_may_2009. If you need a dial-out, please contact staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

US SC judge Scalia and Internet privacy
by Evan Leibovitch May 5, 2009

May 5, 2009

Hi all, This is not directly ICANN related, but I thought it is both relevant and mildly amusing given our discussions regarding WHOIS data on the balance between privacy and access. http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=17438&tag=nl.e539 - Evan

1 0

ICANN budget discussion
by Gareth Shearman April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

Please note that there will be a telephone conference briefing on next year's ICANN budget at 0500 UTC tomorrow. That translates to 10 PM Pacific time tonight and later for most of you. You are welcome, indeed encouraged to participate. (See the APRALO page for details - https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?28_april_2009) The Power Point presentation will be made available later for those who would like to get some sleep tonight! Regards, Gareth

5 5

Reminder: NARALO Teleconference scheduled for Monday, April 20 at 19:00 UTC.
by Heidi Ullrich April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

Dear All, This is to remind you that there is a NARALO teleconference scheduled for Monday, April 20 at 19:00 UTC (12:00 pm PDT/3 pm EDT). Please find the proposed agenda and participation information linked to the meeting page at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?20_april_2009. If you require dial-outs, please let us know at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

draft recall procedure
by Gareth Shearman April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

Darlene and I volunteered to try and devise a first draft. Here is our suggestion: Recall The representative of any NARLO ALS may institute a motion to recall the Chair, Secretariat or either of the two elected NARALO representatives to the ALAC if they deem that individual to not be giving sufficient attention to their duties. Such a motion can only be ratified if it is seconded and passed by a formal vote of 75% of the General Assembly. ALS representatives who do not respond within two weeks of the vote being called will be considered to have abstained. The criteria for entertaining such a motion must include meeting attendance balanced with involvement with RALO and ALAC issues. Comments? Gareth

1 0