- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

ALAC Review - Request for Input
by At-Large Staff April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Dear All: We have been asked to forward you the below from the team performing the ALAC Review. We hope that you will take this opportunity to provide your views to the review if you have not already done so. --- This email follows our earlier request for feedback to the Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee, being conducted by Westlake Consulting Limited. The closing date for submissions is Friday 18th April. Therefore, if you wish to provide any input or feedback on any of the individual questions in the Terms of Reference <http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-review-final-tor-20jun07.pdf> , or ³to contribute observations or information about any aspect of the role, structure or operation of the ALAC,² please email alacreview(a)westlakenz.com by Friday 18th April. The main issues the Review Team has to address are: - [To determine] whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and, - If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. If you would prefer a telephone or Skype call, rather than responding by email, please send your contact details to the same email address, alacreview(a)westlakenz.com, and a member of the Westlake Team will contact you shortly. Among other matters the Terms of Reference note, ³It will be important to consider different perspectives relevant to the ALAC, including the views of individual Internet users, the ALSs, the RALOs, past and current Members of the ALAC, and many others within (and perhaps outside) the ICANN community.² As a result, the Review Team is seeking as wide a range of relevant views as possible. Confidentiality: the Westlake Review Team¹s policy on confidentiality is as follows: ³Your feedback will be treated in confidence. It will not be shared outside the four consultants who comprise the review team (and our office support staff). We might quote from your feedback in our report to ICANN, but we will not identify you as the author. So please feel free to be frank with us.² Westlake Consulting NZ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Today's call
by Evan Leibovitch April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Hello everyone. This is just a reminder about today's NARALO conference call. Time: 1900 UTC which is 3pm Eastern, 2pm Central, noon Pacific and 9am Hawaii Dialin info and agenda are at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_april_2008 Note: For the beginning of this call, we hope to have the participation of Stacy Burnett to help us understand ICANN enforcement issues. Some notes on the proposed enforcement discussion (I believe these came from Danny): 1. Direct Transfer Clauses Circumvention of the Expired Domain Deletions Policy by way of Direct Transfer Clauses in registrar terms of service agreements; will this consensus policy ever be enforced? 2. Compliance Budget $902,000 increase in budget for compliance -- how will these monies be spent? 3. Compliance Assessment Why (per the Operating Plan) will site visits to assess compliance with agreements be limited to 100 per year? 4. Regional Presence with regards to Compliance Assessment What exactly does the phrase "establish Presence in selected regions to assess Compliance" mean? 5. Negligence of Compliance Actions Why haven't compliance actions been initiated subsequent to the 19 September 2007 "Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy"? See you on the call! - Evan

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

John and all, An old saying goes, "if the dog hadden't stopped to do his business, maybe he would have caught the rebbit". Point being that, although I agree with your sentament, I am not sure that a lurker user would. Users should beaking these decisions for themselves, not staff making such decisions for them! The ALAC should service the user. -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 7:22 PM >To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >> And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of >> time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. > >Maybe if we've heard nothing from an ALS for a year, we should take them >off the list. But I entirely agree that this is among the least urgent >actions for the ALAC. > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", >Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor >"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > >------ 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 and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Evan and all, After most of our members have reviewed this document, we, including my self do concur with Evan and Wendy. Many or our members found this document particularly insulting in many aspects, which I shall not elaborate upon, as did I. I found this document to be quite self serving to only the ALAC and ICANN staff, particularly nonsensical, overly restrictive, the code of conduct is excessive and is unrealistic. Frankly, this document IMO seems to have come from the mind or minds of someone whom is on the fringe or seriously deranged. It should be rejected our of hand, and our INEGroup members do so reject it as such... This said, shall we start again? -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 12:34 PM >To: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > > >I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff >of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. > >Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much >the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists. > >ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely >scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >public to them. > >The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are >already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >"non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination >towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves. > >To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to >every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to >learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract >high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! > >I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >(open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to >our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this >was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >"encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require >significant background information supplied in the local street language. > >It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin >will be to have turned nothing into nothing. > >I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC >still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >image appears to indicate that: >1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >serve its mandate >3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves >4) all of the above > >Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a >committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. > >Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. >On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be >handled with common sense and discretion. > >I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public >and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. >Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. > >Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC >activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. > >Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >NARALO chair. > >- Evan > 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 April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Jacque and all, Again sorry but I am quite sure your are the one whom is mistaken/wrong. I have literally millions of Emails that strongly disagree with your position. and many of these documents and Email go back to 1996. which is prior to Icon's existence. Many have been filed with these individuals government representatives including the DOC/NTIA. Further what your suggesting is contrary to the 1996 telecommunications Act, which I helped draft, and the MOU. For a small sampling one has only to review the old DNSO archives as well as the GNSO archives. See:http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaarchives.html and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/ as well as http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 2:29 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >You are wrong. I have loads of emails and other requests for exactly what I >suggested. It is needed. > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:07 PM >To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" ><evan(a)telly.org>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >> Jacque and all, >> >> I and our members totally disagree. The users KNOW what >> the issues that impact them are, and many know where and how >> those issues are either created, were created, can be addressed >> of fixed, and significant detail regarding many if not most of those >> issues. Ergo, it is the ALAC leadership that need desprately to >> do the listening, and reacting to the issues the user/public has, not >> the other way around. >> >> Secondly I, and all of our members disagree that a simple two or >> three page document generated by those that seemingly are not >> willing to listen to users/public issues regarding the managment of >> the Internet, is sufficient. The old addage "The devil is the >> details" is why the users/public needs details in order to make >> truly informed decisions as to how and what THEY wish done accordingly. >> >> You have to remember, that a ligitimate organization's leaders >> and staff, work FOR it's members! >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >>>Sent: Apr 13, 2008 1:03 PM >>>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart >>><Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss >>><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>and Conflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>Evan >>>IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, >>>brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I >>>haven't >>>read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >>>I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the >>>document. >>> >>> I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we >>>haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >>>manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we >>>ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out >>>to >>>their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >>>So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >>>would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >>>discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that >>>includes >>>a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >>>background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they >>>can try to comment. >>>And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period >>>of >>>time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. >>> >>>Jacqueline >>>-------------------------------------------------- >>>From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >>>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >>>To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" >>><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>and >>>Conflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>> >>>> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >>>> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff >>>> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >>>> >>>> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >>>> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >>>> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much >>>> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >>>> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >>>> exists. >>>> >>>> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >>>> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely >>>> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >>>> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >>>> public to them. >>>> >>>> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are >>>> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >>>> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination >>>> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >>>> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >>>> serves. >>>> >>>> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >>>> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to >>>> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >>>> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >>>> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to >>>> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >>>> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract >>>> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >>>> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >>>> >>>> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >>>> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >>>> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to >>>> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this >>>> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >>>> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >>>> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >>>> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >>>> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >>>> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require >>>> significant background information supplied in the local street >>>> language. >>>> >>>> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >>>> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >>>> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin >>>> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >>>> >>>> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >>>> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC >>>> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >>>> image appears to indicate that: >>>> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >>>> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >>>> serve its mandate >>>> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >>>> serves >>>> 4) all of the above >>>> >>>> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >>>> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >>>> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >>>> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a >>>> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >>>> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >>>> >>>> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. >>>> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be >>>> handled with common sense and discretion. >>>> >>>> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >>>> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public >>>> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. >>>> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >>>> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >>>> >>>> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC >>>> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >>>> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >>>> >>>> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >>>> NARALO chair. >>>> >>>> - Evan >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >>>> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >>>> ------ >>>> >> 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: 214-244-4827Regards, >> >> 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 >> > 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 and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Evan and all, So far regarding this subject, I thought your comments and remarks were well made and properly stated. I detected no personal animosity of other nuance indicating such. On a personal note, and for anyone's edification, I as an American and firm believer in freedom of expression, firmly believe in expressing oneself in the way that best suites them, and let the others interpret or misinterpret such as they may or sometimes will. And if someone doesn't like your "Tone", that just too bad for them! In America, we refer this as our 1st Amendment Right. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 3:05 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> I greatly dislike cross-posting, but since the last two posters did >> cross-post, I feel that this statement needs to go to the same audience. >Sorry. It was just that the original doc went to the ALAC list as well >as _all_ the RALO lists. The only ones I'm able to post to are ALAC and NA. > >> As anyone who read my comments knows, I'd onto support the document as >> drafted. >??? > >> However, in fairness to those that did draft it, I do not believe that >> it says ANYTHING about taking action against ALSs (for whatever reason). >> >> It was Danny Younger who suggested this, saying that in his opinion, >> it was something that/ should/ have been included. > >My rant was multi-faceted, though, and clearly directed against the >original document as well as the subsequent discussions. I deliberately >kept individuals out of my comment because it was directed at the >groupthink indicated by the document and discussion more than any >specific contribution. > >Perhaps some elements of my commentary -- such as that ALAC has no >business at this time reworking (and bloating) conflict of interest >guidelines -- were more subtly stated than others. :-) > >- Evan > 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 and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Jacque and all, I and our members totally disagree. The users KNOW what the issues that impact them are, and many know where and how those issues are either created, were created, can be addressed of fixed, and significant detail regarding many if not most of those issues. Ergo, it is the ALAC leadership that need desprately to do the listening, and reacting to the issues the user/public has, not the other way around. Secondly I, and all of our members disagree that a simple two or three page document generated by those that seemingly are not willing to listen to users/public issues regarding the managment of the Internet, is sufficient. The old addage "The devil is the details" is why the users/public needs details in order to make truly informed decisions as to how and what THEY wish done accordingly. You have to remember, that a ligitimate organization's leaders and staff, work FOR it's members! -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 1:03 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Evan >IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, >brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I haven't >read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the document. > > I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we >haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we >ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to >their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes >a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they >can try to comment. >And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of >time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. > >Jacqueline >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and >Conflicts of Interest Policy > >> >> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff >> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >> >> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much >> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >> exists. >> >> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely >> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >> public to them. >> >> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are >> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination >> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >> serves. >> >> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to >> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to >> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract >> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >> >> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to >> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this >> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require >> significant background information supplied in the local street language. >> >> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin >> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >> >> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC >> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >> image appears to indicate that: >> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >> serve its mandate >> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >> serves >> 4) all of the above >> >> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a >> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >> >> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. >> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be >> handled with common sense and discretion. >> >> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public >> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. >> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >> >> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC >> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >> >> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >> NARALO chair. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ >> 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: 214-244-4827Regards, 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] Comments on GNSO improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Evan and all, I totally don't agree that the term "Registrant" confuses either user or registrant, nor do any of our INEGroup members. Remember all registrants ARE also users. But I do agree with Evan that the ALAC should be primarly for users, but should not restrict input to only users that are not registrants as well. To have such a restriction is both unwise and sets up endless warring between the two. and such would server noone any good service. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 12:41 PM >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Sounds like a realistic approach. I'd argue for just "user," as >> "registrant" is just another jargon term that confuses people. >> >I agree. While "registrant" is well understood in these circles, the >need in GNSO is for users -- those who neither buy nor sell domains but >have a stake in Internet usability -- to be represented. > >- Evan 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

NARALO Monthly Teleconference 14 April 2100 UTC
by At-Large Staff April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Dear all, We would like to remind you that the next regional Teleconference will take place on Monday, April 14th at 1900 UTC (3pm Eastern). The meeting page on the NARALO Wiki working space can be found here: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_april_2008 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Welcome Frederic Teboul to the At-Large Staff
by Frederic Teboul April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Hello and thank you all so much for your warm welcome, I am looking forward to working with you and I remain at your disposal for any further information or clarifications, which you might require. Many thanks and best regards, Frederic Frederic E. Teboul, Ph.D., MBA Manager for At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +33 6 3487 0575 Email: frederic.teboul(a)icann.org AIM/iSight: frederic.teboul(a)mac.com Jabber: fredericteboul(a)gmail.com Skype: frederic.teboul Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>: It is my pleasure to introduce you to Frederic Teboul, the new At-Large Regional Affairs Manager. Born in Marseille, France, he began his career in the French Foreign Service in Israel in 1997; he subsequently worked for several parts of the United Nations' system from 2000 to 2005 in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Geneva, Kosovo, New York and Athens. He comes to us most recently from the private sector, where he served as Business Development and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Director for the third-largest Greek maritime operator. His experience in the public and private sectors in a wide variety of international decision-making environments, working with governments, civil society, and industry stakeholders from more than 200 different countries, makes him a valuable addition to the At-Large team in the Policy Unit. He will be responsible in particular for supporting the Regional At-Large Organisations (RALOs), facilitating their involvement in policy development and assisting them in their work representing the individual Internet user interest in ICANN.

2 3