- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

NARALO Teleconference on Monday, 12 May 1900 UTC
by Matthias Langenegger May 12, 2008

May 12, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference will be on Monday, 12 May at 1900 UTC. Please find additional information on the meeting page. https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?12_may_2008 Best Regards, -- Matthias Langenegger At-Large Coordination Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger

2 1

Gmail As Open-Relay Spam Server
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 12, 2008

May 12, 2008

All, Again confirming our members long standing displeasure with Google's business practices has gained additional dubious public exposure. I doubt however that such will in any meaningful way persuade Google from it's increasingly errant ways. But until it does, our members will continue to block Gmail and not use any Google service of any sort. We have been unable to persuade Google to discontinue it's errant ways. It also appears that DHS and the FTC have also failed to dissuade Google effectively as well over the past few years of their illegal ways at the expense of all users anywhere. Or perhaps they haven't tried very hard to do so? One wonders, eh? My questions are to Vint Cerf. When the heck are you going to get your folks to stop spamming everyone it feels it wishes? Does Google disrespect users that much? >From Slashdot: A little problem Google is having that has http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080510-security-flaw-turns-gmail-int… Gmail acting like an open relay. Compounding the issue is the fact that services such as Hotmail and Yahoo trust Gmail as a source of mail. "A recently-discovered flaw in Gmail is capable of turning Google's e-mail service into a highly effective spam machine. According to the Information Security Research Team (INSERT), Gmail is susceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack that allows a spammer to send thousands of bulk e-mails through Google's SMTP service without fear of detection. This attack bypasses both Google's identity fraud protection mechanisms and the current 500-address limit on bulk e-mail." Regretful Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 11, 2008

May 11, 2008

Roberto and all, What's most important, and really the only thing that is important at all is that whatever decision that has the majority consensus, however unmeasured it is or may be, is one that, 1.) has a more than reasonable chance of actually solves the problem being decided, and, 2.) if a compermise a decision that also actually solves the problem. Anything else is pure political theater and folly. As for "Taking your hands away for it" as you say, perhaps, and I strongly but kindly suggest that you first remove both of your feet from you mouth. >:) I also suggest that you cease your not so well done spinmiestering, as it has become clear yet again that your propensity for misconstruing intentionally many things and words presented as Danny earlier again clearly pointed out. Such is demonstarating to the attentive, inconsistant with good ethics. -----Original Message----- >From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 10, 2008 5:09 AM >To: 'Dominik Filipp' <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk>, 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Dominik, > >> The ALAC is committed to the public to express, reflect and >> advocate the best solutions for the public it recognizes and >> considers as being such. >> The ALAC is primarily not obligated to respect any financial >> interests but only the bylaws, the ICANN core values and the >> original mission goals the ALAC was established on. Accepting >> the financial logic would mean that the ALAC would definitely >> give in to unfair and fraudulent practices and as such would >> be rightly accused of suspect collaboration based on pursuing >> non-public interests. > >What is more important for ALAC, to get some results, even if not the >perfect solution, or to yell to the moon what is supposed to be the perfect >solution, and obtain nothing? > > >> [...] >> There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the >> statement it stands for and the board will vote. It is that >> simple. And if this motion will eventually be refused and >> domain tasting will again be reinstated then it will be clear >> whose responsibility it is. This is extremely important to >> know for the record and for history that the ALAC acted >> accountably and warned the board about possible persisting abuse. > >Excellent. We will get nothing, but will be able to blame it on somebody >else. > > >> I do not see any single reason why the ALAC should help carry >> that burden on its shoulders for a decision it has never >> stood for. Take hands away from it. > >Yes! Stay pure and uncontaminated by all the durty things of the real world, >that ask for the ability of building alliances through compromise. Get all >or nothing, don't settle for half of it! >Of course, the obvious conclusion will be that consumers will get nothing. >But is this, after all, of any importance? > >Cheers, >Roberto Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] projet/draft question fondamentale/key question à/to Vint Cerf
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 11, 2008

May 11, 2008

Jefsey and all, Surprisingly enough to you, I am sure, I agree as do most of our members with your concerns regarding the direction IDNA is obviously going for the very same reasons you so corectly state. No End-to-End implimentation. Any time one considers Vint's/Google's, MS's, IBM's, and Larry's Oracle's influence, namely financial on this process/project, one has to consider that they will call the tune unless respective governments and other private sector organizations are willing to pony up a significant share of the costs/funding. As France and other countries have decidedly not sought to provide for any of the IDNA funding, the form of the implimentation will not likely reflect an End-to-End language translation. Understand clearly, "People Centric" in respect to companies in the private sector only goes as far as those private sector companies can see a clear and significant long term financial advantage for their organizations. Same is true unfortunately the IETF and the ISOC sense 2000. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: May 10, 2008 9:15 AM >To: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: projet/draft question fondamentale/key question à/to Vint Cerf > >Chers amis, >Les préoccupations du groupe de Travail de l'IETF sur la révision de >l'IDNA (Noms de Domaines Internationalisés dans les Applications), >présidé par Vint Cerf; deviennent de plus en plus confuses. Or il s'y >joue à nouveau la perception et le support des langues sur >l'Internet, et les systèmes d'identification (IRI), de classement, de >référence, et d'adressage sémantiques qui en dérivent. > >Dear friends, >The concerns of the Working Group of the IETF on the revision of the >IDNA (Internationalised Domain Names in Applications), chaired by >Vint Cerf; become increasingly confused. It decides again of the >perception and support of languages on the Internet, and >identification systems (IRI), classifying, reference, and addressing >semantic that derive from it. > >--- > >Vu l'importance du DNS, ceci décidera pratiquement si notre monde >en-ligne/virtuel : >- va devenir multilpolaire et propre à chacun ("people centric") >selon la volonté du SMSI et le vote obtenu à l'ISO contre la position IETF, >- ou rester 'network centric" comme le conçoit l'IETF, >unilatéralement conditionné, autour de l'ICANN, du IANA et de la >langue anglaise, par le consortium Unicode (IBM, M$, Google, Yahoo! >Oracle), moyennant deux lourdes impasses techniques (1) pas de "end >to end" pour les noms de domaine linguistiques (2) la simulation et >non l'implantation de la couche réseau "présentation", qui manque à >l'Internet, nécessaire aux IDN. > >Given the importance of DNS, this will practically decide whether our >online/virtual world: >-- will be multipolar and specific to each one ( "people centric") >according to the will of the WSIS and the ISO vote against the IETF position, >-- or stay 'network centric" as per the IETF design, unilaterally >conditioned around ICANN, IANA and the English language, by the >Unicode Consortium (IBM, $ M, Google, Yahoo! Oracle), subject to two >heavy technical impasses (1) no "end to end" for domain names >language (2) simulation and non-implementation of the network >"presentation" layer, which misses in the Internet architecture, >necessary for IDNA. > >--- > >Je veux donc demander clairement à Vint Cerf ses intentions après >huit ans d'incertitudes que l'on peut croire stratégiquemernt bien >organisées. Il faut que nous soyons enfin publiquement fixés et >puissions tous aller voir ailleurs avant que cela ne soit trop tard. >Merci de revoir mon projet de mail et de me dire si c'est suffisament >clair et complet. > >I thus want to ask clearly Vint Cerf its intentions after eight years >of waht may be preceived as well organized strategic uncertainties. >We have to be fixed finally publicly and can all go to see somewhere >else before it is too late. Please see review my draft mail and if it >is sufficiently clear and complete. > >--- > >La solution alternative est simple, robuste et conforme aux standards >ouverts. Elle consiste en une implémentation de la couche >"présentation" pour de bon. Ceci demande un développement moyen. >C'est transparent à qui ne l'utilise pas. Cela ne destabilise pas >l'Internet. C'est extrèmement porteur en terme d'applications - >audelà de ce qui est liè à la capacitation linguistique. Toutefois, >cette couche présentation permet de multiplier à l'infini les >"présentations" globales autonomes de l'internet. Des centaines, >milliers d'Internet logiques. Ceci est au diapason du monde réel qui >est distribué, et non pas décentralisé à partir des Etats-Unis. Ceci >signifie à terme un internet plus homogène et intergouverné par les >"ICANN" de chaque "présentation". C'est la vision de l'ICANN dans son >document ICP-3 ou elle envisage ainsi la fin du fichier racine >unique. Ce serait aussi un grand changement pour l'industrie et le >contrôle du nommage qui ne sera plus centré-ICANN, mais lui-aussi >"people centric". . > >The alternative is simple, robust and conform to open standards. It >is an implementation of the "presentation" layer for good. This >requires an average development. It is transparent to who does not >use it. It does not destabilise the Internet. It is extremely >attractive in terms of applications - beyond what is related to >language empowerment. However, the presentation layer allows to >multiply at the infinity autonomous global Internet "presentations". >Hundreds, thousands of logical Internet . This is in tune with the >real world, which is distributed, not decentralized from USA. This >means eventually an internet more homogeneous and intergoverned by >the "ICANN"s of each "presentation". It is the ICANN vision in its >ICP-3 document, which envisages the end of the unique authoritatve >root. It wold also be a big change for the naming industry and >control which will no longer be ICANN-centric but also become people centric > >--- > >Je vous remercie de vos commentaires. >I thank you for your comments. > >jfc >------------------------------------ > >Dear Vint, >Prior to sending this mail, I circulated its draft l to many people >round the world and took their remarks into consideration. > >Avant l'envoi de ce courriel, j'en ai distribué le projet à de >nombreuses personnes autour du monde et j'ai pris leurs remarques en >considération > >--- > >The IDNA issue is a key priority for the continuation of the IETF >technology, as the network technology of the world digital ecosystem >(WDE). If the IETF cannot match the world's expectations in that area >it must say so now, so others can consider alternative solutions >before we see different uncoordinated local solutions developed and deployed. > >Le sujet de l'IDNA est une priorité essentielle pour la poursuite de >l'IETF technologie comme la technologie de réseau de l'ecosystème >numérique mondial (ENM). Si l'IETF ne peut répondre aux attentes du >monde entier dans ce domaine, elle doit le dire maintenant, pour que >l'on puisse envisager d'autres solutions avant de voir un manque de >coordination dans le développement et le déploiement de différentes >solutions locales. > >---- >>At 22:37 09/05/2008, Kenneth Whistler wrote: >>What matters, I think, is what contemporary communities *are* using >>or might reasonably be inferred to want to use if available, for domain names. > >>À 22:37 09/05/2008, Kenneth Whistler a écrit: >>Ce qui importe, je pense, c'est ce que les communautés actuelles >>l'utilisent ou pourraient raisonnablement être pensé être utilisé le >>cas échéant, pour les noms de domaine. > >---- > >Maybe, what really matters are: >(1) the political world consensus for a multilingual Internet for a >people centered multilingual society of information, >(2) the universal resentment at being told what one is supposed to >want. People accept being told by others as to what they can only >do, if they understand exactly why. > >Peut-être, ce qui importe vraiment ce sont : >(1) Le consensus politique du monde pour un Internet multilingue pour >une société multilingue de l'information, centrée sur la personne. >(2) le ressentiment universel à être dit ce que l'on est censé >vouloir. Les gens zvvrptrnt qu'on leur disent ce qu'ils peuvent >seulement faire, s'ils comprennent exactement pourquoi. > >---- > >The world expects a Multilingual DNS that works for every language >and every script the way the DNS works for English and ASCII. Let us >call this the ML-DNS specification. It is very simple, terse, and clear. > >Le monde attend un DNS multilingue qui fonctionne pour toutes les >langues et écritures la manière dont le DNS fonctionne pour l'anglais >et ASCII. Appelon cette spécification ML-DNS. Elle est très simple, >concise et claire. >--- > >Question (A): does this IETF WG-IDNABIS seek to document an IDNA >based ML-DNS in order to be ready for testing by Dec. 2008 (Y/N)? > >Question (A): est-ce que le groupe de travail IETF-IDNABIS entend >documenter un ML-DNS basé sur IDNA pour des essais réel en Décembre >2008 (Y / N)? > >--- >Question (B): If A is "N", what are the clearly defined and >committed detailed specifications of the Nov. 2008 IETF deliverable? > >Among the points to be clarified in these specifications are: >1- will it be mainly focussed towards Mobiles, Browsers, >Applications, or the three of them? >2- will it be phishing proof at every DN level? >3- which scripts or charset and languages will be supported? or will >it be transparent to scripts choices? >4- will it be IDN2003 compatible? >5- will it strive to be future ML-DNS interoperable? >6- why was the IDNA option chosen as the best way to support ML-DNS >vs. other possibilities? >7- will Microsoft, Google, and Firefox fully and identically support >it? Will they also permit the support of any other ML-DNS proposition? > >Parmi les points devant être clarifiés dans ces spécifications : >1 - sera-t-il principalement orienté vers les Mobiles, les >Navigateurs, ou les Applications, ou les trois ? >2 - sera-t-il à l'épreuve de phishing à tous les niveaux des DN? >3 - Les scripts ou jeux de caractères et les langues pris en charge? >ou sera-t-il transparent au choix des écritures? >4 - sera-t-il compatible avec l'IDN2003 ? >5 - cherchera-t-il à être interopérable avec les futurs ML-DNS ? >6 - pourquoi l'option IDNA a-t'elle été choisie par rapport à >d'autres possibilités pour supporter le ML-DNS? >7 - Microsoft, Google et Firefox le respecteront-ils pleinement et de >façon identique? Permettront-ils aussi le support de tout autre >proposition de ML-DNS ? > >---- > >Thank you for your committed answer. > >Merci pour une réponse vous engageant. >jfc Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 11, 2008

May 11, 2008

Dominik and all, Roberto has been a long time supporter of no actual policy role for users or registrants, but has been a supporter in users/stakeholders being able to "Advise" ICANN through the GNSO. Whatever this actually means as far as the ALAC and the ALS'es in respect to getting what users and registrants desire and accountability is a matter of some constranation of course. Frankly I believe that the position of any ICANN Bod/staff member or GNSO staff or council member that religates users and/or registrants, especially Independant Registrants to a role of simply as advisory is cowardly and inconsistant with accountability. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 10, 2008 12:30 PM >To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Roberto, > >For ALAC, it is more and most important to stay accountable to the >public community. If an ALAC's own position is not worth discussing and >properly argumenting with other bodies on equal basis than, yes, >refusing a weak statement and presenting the one ALAC believes is a >better/perfect proposal is the only honest solution. > >Do you call political bargaining a compromise?! Heck! We are not idiots >smashed out of the brain here, Roberto! > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] >Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:09 PM >To: Dominik Filipp; 'Evan Leibovitch' >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Dominik, > >> The ALAC is committed to the public to express, reflect and advocate >> the best solutions for the public it recognizes and considers as being > >> such. >> The ALAC is primarily not obligated to respect any financial interests > >> but only the bylaws, the ICANN core values and the original mission >> goals the ALAC was established on. Accepting the financial logic would > >> mean that the ALAC would definitely give in to unfair and fraudulent >> practices and as such would be rightly accused of suspect >> collaboration based on pursuing non-public interests. > >What is more important for ALAC, to get some results, even if not the >perfect solution, or to yell to the moon what is supposed to be the >perfect solution, and obtain nothing? > > >> [...] >> There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement >> it stands for and the board will vote. It is that simple. And if this >> motion will eventually be refused and domain tasting will again be >> reinstated then it will be clear whose responsibility it is. This is >> extremely important to know for the record and for history that the >> ALAC acted accountably and warned the board about possible persisting >> abuse. > >Excellent. We will get nothing, but will be able to blame it on somebody >else. > > >> I do not see any single reason why the ALAC should help carry that >> burden on its shoulders for a decision it has never stood for. Take >> hands away from it. > >Yes! Stay pure and uncontaminated by all the durty things of the real >world, that ask for the ability of building alliances through >compromise. Get all or nothing, don't settle for half of it! >Of course, the obvious conclusion will be that consumers will get >nothing. But is this, after all, of any importance? > >Cheers, >Roberto > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, VERY nicely articulated here Dominik. I fully agree with your arguments and their obvious correct conclusion. But let's be VERY clear, the members are, and in the majority decided that the AGP must go. Although there are other means by which Domain Name Tasting can be eradicated in short order, one of which I have outlined as a proposal, that proposal did not or has not yet gained sufficient support. Frankly and disgustingly it is clear that the ICANN Bod is very interested in getting this problem decided as Roberto has already several times mentioned or otherwise eluded to. It is also clear that changing the RAA was in his opinion not currently supported by the majority of the ICANN Bod at this time, which confirms your argument significantly. I for the life of me cannot understand how any public interest corporation can act or even consider acting in complete or nearly complete disagreement with the public interests over and over again. To do so without impunity is devoid of proper and ethical leadership... This also seems to be the case with the ALAC in regards to Domain Name Tasting. What you Dominik are seemingly articulating comes very close if not precisely to what is legally known as "Collusion" for financial gain, which is a form of Fraud and should be addressed as such. I would not at all be surprised at some point that IF the motion that the ALAC falsely represented in the name of the ALAC members is adopted that a RICO case or cases ensue. I for one, along with our members, are saddened and disgusted to read much of Evans remarks, which appear to be far less than courageous or reflect good and ethical leadership. Very unfortunate! >:( -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 9, 2008 10:42 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Hello Evan, > >Please read my comments interspersed below > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:37 PM >To: Dominik Filipp >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >>Hello Dominik, >> >>The way it was put to us -- those of us who >>strongly advanced abolishing the AGP -- >>was essentially this: >> >>"Our primary goal is getting rid of tasting, which >>will likely happen by widely mandating the partial >>measures already initiated by two registries. Total >>AGP elimination will be strenuously opposed by the >>financial interests, so there's no way that will happen. >>Why back a position that has no chance of succeeding? >>We should be seen as going along with a >>broadly-supported measure that directly addresses >>tasting and has a chance to be implemented." > >The ALAC is committed to the public to express, reflect and advocate the >best solutions for the public it recognizes and considers as being such. >The ALAC is primarily not obligated to respect any financial interests >but only the bylaws, the ICANN core values and the original mission >goals the ALAC was established on. Accepting the financial logic would >mean that the ALAC would definitely give in to unfair and fraudulent >practices and as such would be rightly accused of suspect collaboration >based on pursuing non-public interests. > >In case of domain tasting the situation is clear. For the public the AGP >elimination is by far the best solution. The ALAC should hold it and >pronounce it explicitly and loudly. This is the only honest solution >towards the community the ALAC advocates and should always advocate. >Keep in mind that so far there has not been any single common >constituency/wider-public discussion organized addressing the AGP >elimination properly whatsoever. Upon what then the ALAC should have to >consider a possible compromise when none argument-base has ever been >collected and considered? Upon financial and political bargaining? Is >this the way the ALAC wants to follow? If so then we all should quickly >forget all the pro-public mission goals and honestly admit: Yes, the >ALAC is definitely part of the sham and we all are fraudsters misusing >public money just helping pretend the service to the public. Even worse, >the far biggest guilt would lay on ALAC's shoulders because it is the >only body, neither registrars nor registries nor any other constituency, >that is primarily responsible for defending wide public interests. There >is no any third way to follow; either we are part of the sham or we act >as a self-confident independent body with full sense of the >accountability delegated. I believe the latter choice is the case. > >There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement it >stands for and the board will vote. It is that simple. And if this >motion will eventually be refused and domain tasting will again be >reinstated then it will be clear whose responsibility it is. This is >extremely important to know for the record and for history that the ALAC >acted accountably and warned the board about possible persisting abuse. >I do not see any single reason why the ALAC should help carry that >burden on its shoulders for a decision it has never stood for. Take >hands away from it. > > >>My analysis of this is twofold: >> >>- ALAC does not yet have the maturity nor the >>confidence to advance a position that it perceives >>to be extremely unpopular with other constituencies, >>even if that position accurately reflects the >>public sentiment. > >Then, indeed, it is the right time for the ALAC to get matured. Once it >happens the other constituencies will start taking the ALAC seriously. >As it really deserves. > > >>- It's always easier to attack the symptom than >>the cause, even though leaving the cause intact >>will likely lead to future problems. Tasting is >>the symptom, AGP is the cause. While the currently >>proposed partial measures will indeed reduce much >>tasting, leaving the AGP untouched appears to be >>a clear invitation to bad agents to invent new >>forms of abuse. > >Exactly right. > > >>I have personally come to the conclusion that ALAC, >>in its current form, will do whatever it can to >>avoid confrontation with other constituencies. > >This, however, is sort of childish behavior resembling a child >compulsively addicted to their parents or elder siblings. No wonder such >a child is not taken seriously. > > >>Some of this sentiment is understandable, given >>the limitations imposed on it by the nature of >>its constitution. After all, even GNSO is only >>now coming to realize the detrimental effects >>of having voting members who are unaccountable >>to anyone. Indeed, one can easily argue that >>ICANN as a whole is scared of confronting the >>registries and registrars, given the problems >>to date in even enforcing existing policy. > >You are absolutely right here and I am happy you have recognized this. >ICANN as a whole is scared of those who claim themselves as being >powerful and influential. They are not only registrars and registries >but also the servile officers helping cover their activities. They are >spreading out all the fear among people. But open your eyes and look at >them without fear, you'll find narrow-minded people addicted to their >benefits, or exploiting the ICANN mission on purpose, some not >interested in nearly anything just peacefully lost in golden slumbers. >But there is also a number of honest people that are trying to do >something meaningful themselves being scared by the rest though. Do you >still think we should scare of such people? Some of them at high >positions do not follow the ICANN mission as an organization >representing multi-stakeholder community and should therefore be >recognized and treated accordingly. Either they will come around or they >will have to go. > > >>Other factors arise from the broad internal >>diversity of ALAC, within which the desire >>to achieve consensus will usually lead to >>compromise positions. > >This is a legitimate question/problem and needs to be addressed. In >general, making compromise positions is a normal thing, there is nothing >wrong with it. Just, we should not mistake compromise for backdown. > > >>As a result, I can accept advancing the current >>partial answer to tasting with the understanding >>that this is a transitional action. AGP elimination >>remains the ultimate goal -- at least within NARALO >>-- though I am unsure if ALAC in its current form >>is even capable of advancing that position as >>forcefully as will be necessary to succeed. > >Well, I see a problem here. In my opinion, there is no any transactional >action intended in mind. Once the tasting will be approved this way or >another it will be kept as is for a very long time. Have a brief look at >the current final statement and you'll find how tricky it is formulated. >If during the next two years of (dysfunctional) ICANN oversight a public >outrage appears again it will be consolidated (put out) by waking up the >oversight committee that will try to curb it by (this time functional) >oversight to calm the outrage. And this might be going on and on in such >waves during the upcoming two years. Indeed, a weak concept. > > >>That, Dominik, is my personal answer regarding why >>I have not been pushing this issue harder. ALAC has >>enough other things on its plate. :-) >> >>- Evan > >Oh, come on. Have a rest for a while and things will be getting better. >There is not that much to do. >If we fail in this the plate will soon be full of leftovers :-) > > >Have a nice weekend > >Dominik > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Louis and all, Frankly I have never had any problem with understanding either traditional French or Quebecer. But than again I am mearly and american, so what do I know, right? However just as frankly, as some of my relatives are French and live in the south of France and others live near Paris I recognized early in my life that because there are some intrensic differences in Southern French and Parisian French and that sometimes the two cultures get irritated with each others manner of speaking French that such is more of an attitude problem than it is a understanding each other problem. Realizing of course, that French people are still of the mistaken notion that French is the language of diplomacy, and once long ago it was predominantly, their passion for proper french to be spoken remains as a carry over from long ago... English is the predominant language of deplomacy and commonality. I don't see that changing in my life time, unless of course the Chinese business influence becomes more prominant. Than and if of course there will be a much bigger problem as there are many different dialects of Chinese, a few or which I speak well, but some are so different that direct translation in very difficult, yet the Chinese seem to manage quite well. Why don't the French? So to conclude, get over it and move on please... Oh yes, and by the way, although I don't travel that much any more, when I did and went to Quebec I spoke French, and no one mentioned to me that they did not understand me quite well. I also always have had great fun in Quebec as well! >:) Vive la France! -----Original Message----- >From: Louis Houle <louis.houle(a)oricom.ca> >Sent: May 9, 2008 5:03 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Cc: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, info(a)ipc.org, avri(a)acm.org, twomey(a)icann.org, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Hi Jeffrey and all > > >We are talking here about differences between two different >languages...but if you wish, I have a series of stories, that long, >related to French visitors misunderstanding a Quebecer speaking French >and vice-versa. In Canada, willful French and English Canadian >politicians are still searching how to translate two words in both >languages: «distinct society». It became a significant problem ! >My understanding is that you're part of the 8 % of the world's >population that can cope with at least two different languages. Great ! >I would definitely trust your translation before Google's, Altavista's, etc. > >I don't buy your point of view so I suggest that we end this discussion >on line but next time you come in Quebec City, give me a buzz and we >will talk it over. I will introduce you to one of our «distinct» ISOC >Quebec member who spent is whole career writing standards for ISO in >French and English. Fun garanteed... > >Bonne journée > >Louis Houle >Président >ISOC Québec > > > >Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit : >> Louis and all, >> >> Thanks for your interesting response, Louis. However >> in most cases within a language centric culture, the nuanced >> differences are minimal and usually understood by that broad >> social group/culture. One particular excpetion would be >> Chinese and the many different dialects and vast differences >> in Chinese cultures. As many of my relitives are French and >> most that are, live in various regions in France, yet have no >> problem with understanding each other. Other of my relitives >> live in Spain where Basque in some areas is dramatically >> different the Castilion Spanish which has some minor differences >> from laton american spanish, but not so great that good understanding >> is significantly impacted. So to say to me, "Try it", well I have >> many, many times and have had little significant problems. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Louis Houle <louis.houle(a)oricom.ca> >>> Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:39 PM >>> To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >>> Cc: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, info(a)ipc.org, avri(a)acm.org, twomey(a)icann.org, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>> Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit : >>> >>>> Jacque and all, >>>> >>>> Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, >>>> yet English is the boradly excepted international language >>>> and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language >>>> translation software is readily avaliable and has been for >>>> at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of >>>> being able to cope with the differences in language is >>>> a weak argument at best. Try again! >>>> >>>> >>> One might find out some differences between cultures, languages, >>> Jeffrey. Try it. Concerning translation software, the running gag in my >>> office is to test the newest translator, to process an inoffensive text >>> >> >from French to English to French again. You always end up with two >> >>> different stories. The funniest comes up when you pour in what we call >>> «false friends» which is the same word in two different languages with a >>> different meaning. Ex.: «capitation» : a form of contracted dental care >>> (English) or a donation to your favorite church (French). If you don't >>> have a cultural background in both languages, the translation software >>> doesn't have it either. Try harder Jeffrey. >>> >>> Ami calmant ! >>> >>>> >>>> As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, >>>> have members from all walks of like and means of employment. >>>> All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall >>>> taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was >>>> 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are >>>> over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet >>>> ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from >>>> them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have >>>> been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and >>>> the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. >>>> That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. >>>> The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of >>>> the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC >>>> to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution. >>>> >>>> So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being >>>> all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing >>>> to any of our members. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >>>>> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM >>>>> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy >>>>> >>>>> Well Danny >>>>> I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The >>>>> oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to >>>>> participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the >>>>> information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's >>>>> little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the >>>>> language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, >>>>> like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. >>>>> If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 >>>>> years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not >>>>> broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs >>>>> probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved. >>>>> >>>>> How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been >>>>> posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? >>>>> Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a >>>>> series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be >>>>> the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. >>>>> So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the >>>>> system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my >>>>> opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would >>>>> join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was >>>>> affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might >>>>> be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would >>>>> have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join. >>>>> >>>>> I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with >>>>> the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet >>>>> Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer >>>>> organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in >>>>> the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my >>>>> aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful >>>>> research, except as directed by others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jacqueline >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM >>>>> To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" >>>>> <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org>; "Nick >>>>> Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>>> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>>> andConflicts of Interest Policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they >>>>>> could easily be reading the relevant news articles and >>>>>> blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they >>>>>> certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of >>>>>> thousands of dollars to bring organizational >>>>>> representatives into their midst on a periodic basis >>>>>> just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot >>>>>> less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the >>>>>> necessary surveys and polls. >>>>>> >>>>>> But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after. >>>>>> >>>>>> They want real solutions to real problems... that >>>>>> means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to >>>>>> engage in research, to declare their findings based >>>>>> upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations >>>>>> based upon the findings. >>>>>> >>>>>> As this hasn't been happening and as there is no >>>>>> likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at >>>>>> all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no >>>>>> continuing purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the >>>>>> former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain >>>>>> ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be >>>>>> discontinued. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement >>>>>> could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does >>>>>> happen, where findings are noted, and where policy >>>>>> recommendations do emerge. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed >>>>>> experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, >>>>>> the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a >>>>>> representative unit after four years -- you've had >>>>>> more than ample time to prove the worth of the >>>>>> ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the >>>>>> job done. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this >>>>>> rathole. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, Your correct in that the ALAC's statement on Domain name Tasting was not based on the majority of comments from the ALAC members or the ALS'es, but rather the desire of a few ( 3 or 4 ) or the ALAC's and ALS'es "Leaders" whom have themselves stated that were being overwhelmed with comments and remarks regarding same. Such attitudes or precieved attitudes are inconsistant with good leadership, undermine the members and misrepresent the actual consensus however unmeasured, of the members participating. That sort of leadership is not reasonably exceptable! >:( Therefore I request that an agenda item be added to this Teleconference that deals directly, and bluntly with the errant act in the improper statement of Domain Name Tasting that was put forward in our names and propose that those responsible step down so that responsible leadership can be elected by the members and that it be resolved that the statement be recinded in favor of the actual consensus which was the elimination of the AGP as the method of addressing and solving Domain Name tasting. Additionally I request that IP Hijacking be added as an immediate issue that needs addressing quickly and that this issue be added to the agenda for the ALAC Teleconference as well. Finnaly I also request that the issue or mis configured DNS'es such as but not excluded to hovtek.com.au, Telly.org, ietf.org, franceatlarge.org, and ICANN.ORG be added to the agenda so that these very dangerous in some instances, misconfigured DNS'es will not be a source of harm or damage to unwitting users or otherwise. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 9, 2008 3:56 AM >To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >I would recommend that the participants of the teleconference 13 May >raise a demand to reconsider the current ALAC statement on domain >tasting in favour of the previously supported stronger position based on >the AGP elimination, as it much better addresses the concerns of the >public community. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl >Langdon-Orr >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:48 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Please Note that the meeting page has now been updated to include >several items for Discussion / Decision ... And that the agenda is still >subject to changes / additions proposed by ALAC Members > >CLO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp [mailto:dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk] >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:06 PM >To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au; Matthias Langenegger; >alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Ah sorry, I missed the note about the Discussion items being in >preparation. >Please send them to us when available. > >Thanks > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik >Filipp >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:56 AM >To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au; Matthias Langenegger; >alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >I cannot find Domain Tasting there. > >Where is it? > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au] >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:41 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; 'Matthias Langenegger'; >alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >The Agenda is / will be found here >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 as Matthias mentioned >in his email Discussion items will be uploaded shortly... > >CLO > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik >Filipp >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:49 PM >To: Matthias Langenegger; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Is there a list of issues to be discussed during the teleconference >available? > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthias >Langenegger >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:06 AM >To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Dear all, > >This is to remind you about the upcoming monthly ALAC teleconference >taking place on Tuesday, 13 May at 1330 UTC. Please find additional >information such as participation instructions on the link below. > >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 > >A draft meeting agenda will be uploaded shortly. There will be Spanish >and French interpretation for this call. If you would like to be on the >French or the Spanish channel or if you would like to be on the English >channel and need to be dialed out to, please make sure your name is on >the dial-out list on the meeting page. > >Best Regards, >-- >Matthias Langenegger >At-Large Coordination Officer >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 >Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 >Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Louis and all, Thanks for your interesting response, Louis. However in most cases within a language centric culture, the nuanced differences are minimal and usually understood by that broad social group/culture. One particular excpetion would be Chinese and the many different dialects and vast differences in Chinese cultures. As many of my relitives are French and most that are, live in various regions in France, yet have no problem with understanding each other. Other of my relitives live in Spain where Basque in some areas is dramatically different the Castilion Spanish which has some minor differences from laton american spanish, but not so great that good understanding is significantly impacted. So to say to me, "Try it", well I have many, many times and have had little significant problems. -----Original Message----- >From: Louis Houle <louis.houle(a)oricom.ca> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:39 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Cc: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, info(a)ipc.org, avri(a)acm.org, twomey(a)icann.org, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit : >> Jacque and all, >> >> Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, >> yet English is the boradly excepted international language >> and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language >> translation software is readily avaliable and has been for >> at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of >> being able to cope with the differences in language is >> a weak argument at best. Try again! >> >One might find out some differences between cultures, languages, >Jeffrey. Try it. Concerning translation software, the running gag in my >office is to test the newest translator, to process an inoffensive text >from French to English to French again. You always end up with two >different stories. The funniest comes up when you pour in what we call >«false friends» which is the same word in two different languages with a >different meaning. Ex.: «capitation» : a form of contracted dental care >(English) or a donation to your favorite church (French). If you don't >have a cultural background in both languages, the translation software >doesn't have it either. Try harder Jeffrey. > >Ami calmant ! >> >> As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, >> have members from all walks of like and means of employment. >> All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall >> taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was >> 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are >> over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet >> ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from >> them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have >> been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and >> the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. >> That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. >> The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of >> the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC >> to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution. >> >> So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being >> all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing >> to any of our members. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >>> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM >>> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>> Well Danny >>> I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The >>> oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to >>> participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the >>> information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's >>> little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the >>> language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, >>> like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. >>> If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 >>> years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing >>> this. >>> >>> I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not >>> broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs >>> probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved. >>> >>> How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been >>> posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? >>> Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a >>> series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be >>> the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. >>> So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the >>> system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my >>> opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would >>> join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was >>> affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might >>> be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would >>> have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join. >>> >>> I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with >>> the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet >>> Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer >>> organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in >>> the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my >>> aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful >>> research, except as directed by others. >>> >>> >>> Jacqueline >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM >>> To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" >>> <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org>; "Nick >>> Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>> andConflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>> >>>> If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they >>>> could easily be reading the relevant news articles and >>>> blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they >>>> certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of >>>> thousands of dollars to bring organizational >>>> representatives into their midst on a periodic basis >>>> just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot >>>> less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the >>>> necessary surveys and polls. >>>> >>>> But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after. >>>> >>>> They want real solutions to real problems... that >>>> means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to >>>> engage in research, to declare their findings based >>>> upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations >>>> based upon the findings. >>>> >>>> As this hasn't been happening and as there is no >>>> likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at >>>> all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no >>>> continuing purpose. >>>> >>>> Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the >>>> former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain >>>> ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be >>>> discontinued. >>>> >>>> Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement >>>> could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does >>>> happen, where findings are noted, and where policy >>>> recommendations do emerge. >>>> >>>> It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed >>>> experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, >>>> the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a >>>> representative unit after four years -- you've had >>>> more than ample time to prove the worth of the >>>> ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the >>>> job done. >>>> >>>> I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this >>>> rathole. >>>> >>>> >>>> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, Yes I am aware that the issues I briefly outlined are subject matter for the GNSO Improvements. But also many of the issues I briefly outlined are central to the ALAC and the ALS'es including the NARALO. This is why I mentioned them on this thread. However thank you for again emphisizing that the issues I briefly mentioned are inclusive to the necessary improvements to the GNSO and have been sense it replaced the DNSO and were never implimented for a number of special interest objection reasons. As long as the GNSO councils members are predominantly controled by a few special interest constituencies, progress, solving of issues will either never occur, or be very problamatic and likely end up with compermises that don't solve those problems or are symptomatic at best. Such eventualities are inconsistant with good structure, and leadership. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 9, 2008 3:18 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, icann-list(a)sorehands.com, Brenbe(a)consumer.org, bfausett(a)internet.law.pro, carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm, john-ietf(a)jck.com, sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Jeff, > >All the things you are mentioning is subject matter of the GNSO >Improvements. That is what should be in focus in the first place. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:06 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; Wendy Seltzer; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; >na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: At-Large; icann-list(a)sorehands.com; Brenbe(a)consumer.org; >bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; >denise.michel(a)icann.org; john-ietf(a)jck.com; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org; stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Dominik and all, > > My and our members main problem with the ALAC, the ALS'es and the >NARALO is a complete lack of transparency, openness, and significant >propensity for censorship that has already been displayed. > > The problems with the ALAC structure, the GNSO structure are nearly >the same the ALAC and the GNSO are wanting or seemingly wanting to >restrict based on various unreasonable and improper rule making, active >participation and membership of all classes of stakeholders be they >users or registrant-users of various sorts. This does not boad well for >ICANN meeting it's mission requirements and significantly undermines the >MOU. As such, there can be no policy decision that has any form of >legitimate consensus, and certainly not measured consensus. > > Of course all of the above has been, and remains the central and >predominant question as to ICANN's legitimacy sense it's conception. > > If indeed openness and transparency as well as accountability are ever >to be achieved no stakeholder can be denied both a voice and a vote as >to any policy that may be considered, nor can any stakeholder, most >especially users be denied or moderated from access and intimidated or >refused the ability to propose policy to any public resource including >public forums such as these. Of course this would require that users >regardless of status, have the predominant position on the ICANN board, >the GSNO council, and within or as a part of any ALS, including of >course the NARALO. > > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>Sent: May 8, 2008 8:38 AM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >>Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting >> >>Evan, >> >>If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement > >>worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the > >>new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the >>important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on >>3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which >>the statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint >>statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. >> >>Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, >>but I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further >>refinement. >> >>However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or > >>reconsider the statement. >> >>Dominik >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >>Leibovitch >>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM >>To: Wendy Seltzer >>Cc: At-Large >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting >> >>Hi Wendy, >>> While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in >>> the >>> 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected > >>> cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with >>> compelling >> >>> explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. >>> >>This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. >> >>It was noted that >>-- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for >>Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. >>-- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has >>special significance (and publicity potential) >>-- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when >>planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of >>this. >> >>> With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC > >>> and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is >>> signed >> >>> on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >>> process and substance. >>> >>Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have > >>expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. >> >>To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint >>statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in >>approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm > >>not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint >>statement as it has currently been negotiated. >> >>> The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an >"ALAC" >> >>> review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >>structure. >>> >>This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of >>ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to >>completely separate the two. >> >>Can you clairify what they meant? >> >>- Evan >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>n >>.org >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>n.org >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0