- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Report on the Washington IIC Session
by Danny Younger Oct. 6, 2008

Oct. 6, 2008

Wendy and I were in attendance at ICANN's Washington session on Improving Institutional Confidence. My assessment of the collective view: the level of confidence in ICANN is now substantially lower than it has been in several years: 1. Participants cast doubts on ICANN's willingness to be accountable. 2. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of sufficient compliance measures. 3. The sentiment was expressed that contracting parties have captured the ICANN policy process. 4. The business community spoke to domain registration system abuses and expressed fears pertaining to the launch of new gTLDs 5. Several complaints regarding the GNSO restructuring plan were heard On a positive note, CEO Paul Twomey recognized the need for a comprehensive review of registrar accreditation processes as a valid operational concern. The audiocast of the session may be found on ICANN's home page. About 175 people attended the event.

3 2

VeriSign acquires .name registry
by Danny Younger Oct. 4, 2008

Oct. 4, 2008

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/03/domain-name-consolidation-verisign-acq…

1 0

21,000 sites suspended in the past 48 hours
by Danny Younger Oct. 4, 2008

Oct. 4, 2008

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/fake_antispyware_purve…

1 0

Free trip to ARIN rsvp asap
by Dharma Dailey Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Dear NARALO compadres, A number of the active NARALO members have expressed an interest in working with ARIN. In an effort to support collaboration between NARALO and ARIN, ARIN has offered to comp a NARALO member a trip to ARIN. Through a bit of a communication breakdown, this was only sorted out today. The next ARIN meeting is in Los Angeles the week after next. http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXII/ It may be too last minute for any of you to jump on the bandwagon, but we can sort something out for their next meeting (six months from now) in a proper way. In the meantime, I suggest that if a NARALO member is available to attend the next ARIN meeting and that member has an interest in helping NARALO develop a relationship with ARIN, they should say so. In order to not circumvent NARALO decision making, that member could attend the next ARIN meeting in an informal capacity. I will have limited email access Sunday through Wednesday. So, I would need to hear back from you all by Sunday morning. I will be going to LA as a rep for a number of community networks in NA. Best Regards, Dharma

1 0

Wendy Seltzer re-elected ALAC rep to ICANN board
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

The vote was just announced. I'd like to congratulate Wendy and to console Beau. -Evan

1 0

REVISED: Re: [ALAC] Fast flux update
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

I neglected to put in a pointer to Avri's full plan - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00662.html. Alan At 01/10/2008 12:31 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Probably no action necessary at this point. See today's posts by >Avri Doria and Mike Rodenbaugh on the GNSO Council list - >http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/. > >Alan > >At 29/09/2008 07:07 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >>Oh dear this is disappointing... Beau we will ensure this matter of an >>ALAC letter going out is on this month Agenda... >> >>Can the RALO Reps ensure that the 'back-up' support / opinions of their >>constituent ALS's are sort on this please as it will be FAR more powerful if >>we can say and this, this and this ALS have stated their Memberships >>agreement to this as well... >> >>CLO (who is about to forward this message to her own ALS and the APRALO >>Chair/list {subtle *hint* here for others} ;-) >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau >>Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2008 1:50 AM >>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss >>Subject: [ALAC] Fast flux update >> >> >>Brief update: It appears this WG has stalled for the foreseeable future. The >>chairman, Mike O'Connor, has resigned. Avri Doria sent a message this >>morning telling the participants to await next steps, but the WG had pretty >>much stalled in process already. >> >> >>Bureaucratic processes are not my strong suit, but should the ALAC create a >>short statement of advisory that we believe this is an important issue, >>provide some framework and definition, and encourage the GNSO to >>re-constitute the group? >> >>Beau >> >>** >>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. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Fast flux update
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Brief update: It appears this WG has stalled for the foreseeable future. The chairman, Mike O'Connor, has resigned. Avri Doria sent a message this morning telling the participants to await next steps, but the WG had pretty much stalled in process already. Bureaucratic processes are not my strong suit, but should the ALAC create a short statement of advisory that we believe this is an important issue, provide some framework and definition, and encourage the GNSO to re-constitute the group? Beau ** 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.

6 7

Discussion: NCUC, "capture, " and non-commercial stakeholders group
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Per Milton's request in the note below, I'm copying this to NA-Discuss, since most of the folks who have been having these conversations are in the NA RALO. I have copied also Carlton Samuels of LAC RALO who has also expressed interest in this regard. I don't want to get in the middle of any contretemps between Milton and Danny, here -- not my intent, rather, we should just try to talk about this before Cairo. Milton is right that the whole ALAC should talk about it but I'm not sure forwarding this e-mail to the broad list would be the best approach due to language issues. BB -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:32 PM To: Carlos Afonso Cc: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; Brendler, Beau; Mark Costa Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: NCUC Capture Plans]] Danny Can you explain to me how giving all organizations/members the same voting rights in plenum constitutes capture? Do you think you or your group of 4-5 people should get more votes than others? It's also interesting that you didn't initiate discussion within NCUC, since you are on our list. Are you afraid that your accusations won't stand up when people can actually respond to you? I've copied Beau and Mark Costa, they're on the ALAC discuss list and perhaps can forward this response. Can you do that, please? Here's the deal: under the plan we are considering, new constituencies will be relatively easy to form, but once that happens constituencies can no longer be tied to a specific number of seats on the GNSO Council. (Otherwise you will constantly be fighting over the distribution of seats in a zero sum game. One constituency can gain seats only by taking them away from another constituency.) Instead, all members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) should have basically the same voting rights and Council members should seek the support of ALL members in ALL constituency groupings. This is really the only sensible way to do it, if you bother to think about it. Another thing you apparently don't understand: in the future NCSG, the NCUC will dissolve; i.e., cease to exist. It's pretty hard for NCUC to "capture" something when it no longer exists. All current members will become generic NCSG members and free to reform as new constituencies under the new structure. Note also that the current NCUC contains a great deal of diversity and cannot be considered a single, homogenous force out to "capture" anything. E.g., we have multilingualists, Chinese ngos, Mormon conservatives alongside atheists and liberal free speech advocates. More details will be available about this plan as we work it out, and we already have plans to discuss it with ALAC and anyone else interested in Cairo. We're open to reasonable ideas, if you have any. But it's not helpful to try to poison the well by knocking a proposal you haven't even seen yet, and haven't even made an effort to discuss with the people developing it. --MM *** Scanned ** 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.

1 0

For consideration at the monthly meeting
by Danny Younger Sept. 29, 2008

Sept. 29, 2008

There was a time when the ccTLD community was part of the DNSO. They weren't happy with the arrangement as matters of importance to them couldn't properly be discussed and dealt with in the DNSO environment. Ultimately they chose to leave the DNSO and formed their own Supporting Organization, the ccNSO. I think that we need to start asking ourselves if our concerns are properly being served solely by continued participation in the ALAC. We put up issues for discussion, and invariably none of the other regions discuss those issues. Neither are our topics being discussed by the ALAC members on the ALAC discuss list. On top of everything else, we need to worry about a continued trend of ALAC non-participation that results in meetings where quorum is not attained and where our work and concerns cannot be progressed in a timely manner. As we consider the future, one particular option stands out. The GNSO is willing to accept new constituencies. As you know, the GNSO is the body that actually crafts new policy. All the ALAC has ever been able to do is to merely suggest to the GNSO that they consider a new policy. As I see it, the needs of the North American community would be better served as a constituent body within the GNSO than as a mere appendage to the ALAC processes. That is not to say that the NARALO could not serve in both capacities (within the ALAC and within the GNSO). I am willing to talk about the possibility of the NARALO becoming a formal constituency within the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of the GNSO. I see it as a better way forward that would allow us to introduce motions directly to the GNSO for consideration. This notion also comports with the intent of the Board Governance Committee recommendations to open up the Non-Commercial grouping within the GNSO so that it doesn't remain the sole province of the NCUC. Let's talk about this.

5 5

Summit Questionnaire:
by Danny Younger Sept. 29, 2008

Sept. 29, 2008

So only 49 ALSs bothered to reply to the Summit Questionnaire, and from the NARALO the only responses received came from: 1. America@Large 2. ISOC Quebec 3. Telecommunities Canada 4. Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail(CAUCE North America) 5. ISOC Puerto Rico 6. The Intellectual Property & Technology Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association 7. Pacific Community Networks Association (PCNA) This means that the following groups didn't respond (and likely we should be asking them to explain why they chose not to respond): Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities ISOC New York Communautique Consumer Reports WebWatch Youth Helping Youth Inc dba: Emerging Futures Network Association For Community Networking The Alberta Community Network Association People Who N-CAP CLUE - The Canadian Association for Open Source Privaterra Web405 Question: If "Delegates are expected to be full participants" and the above group has not participated fully, are these ALSs to be denied Summit travel funding?

5 6