- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers
by Thomas Lowenhaupt Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

1 0

Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers
by Thomas Lowenhaupt Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

1 0

ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29jan08.htm ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting Suggested fee change would effectively eliminate tasting 29 January 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is looking to effectively end domain tasting with a proposal to start charging the annual ICANN fee on registrar domain registrations. Domain tasting is the use of the Add Grace Period to test the profitability of a domain name registration. The AGP is a five-day period following the initial registration of a domain name when the registration may be deleted and a credit can be issued to a registrar. "Domain tasting has been an issue for the Internet community and ICANN is offering this proposal as a way to stop tasting," said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "Charging the ICANN fee as soon as a domain name is registered would close the loophole used by tasters to test a domain name's profitability for free." AGP was originally introduced by registries so registrars could avoid costs if a domain name was mistyped or misspelled during the registration process. It is part of the .com, .net, .org, .info, .name, .pro, and .biz registry contracts. Tasting has been a serious challenge for the Internet community and has grown exponentially since 2004. In January 2007 the top 10 domain tasters accounted for 95% of all deleted .com and .net domain names - or 45,450,897 domain names out of 47,824,131 total deletes. The proposal will be part of the ICANN budget process for the fiscal year starting 1 July 2008. The early draft version of that budget will be released for and discussed at ICANN's New Delhi meeting later this month. After public discussions of this proposal and other budget issues, the proposed budget will be released for addition discussions by 17 May 2008 and be voted on at the board meeting to be held during the ICANN meeting in Paris in June. ICANN accredited registrars representing two-thirds of fees collected will be asked to approve the proposal. "This idea came from the ICANN community and we think it is a viable solution the Internet community has been seeking," Dr Twomey added. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 2

Welcome Matthias Langenegger to the ICANN At-Large Staff
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 22, 2008

Feb. 22, 2008

Dear all: It is my pleasure to introduce you to Matthias Langenegger, who has just joined the At-Large staff in the Policy Unit as At-Large Coordination Officer. He’ll be helping support the global At-Large community in scheduling, meeting support and logistics, servicing information requests, minuting meetings, and helping keep the websites and community communications tools (like the new membership system) up- to-date amongst other essential tasks. Many of you may know Matthias from the IGF Secretariat, where he interned throughout much of 2007 - while there he assisted in the preparations for the Rio de Janeiro Internet Governance Forum in November 2007, coordinating the sessions schedule and providing logistical coordination. He also assisted in the assessment process for the different workshop and best practice proposals. Before and during his university education, he worked in different office environments such as banks and a small language school. He is originally from the German-speaking part of Switzerland and is a native German speaker who is fluent in English and French. He also speaks fair Catalan and Spanish having lived in Barcelona for a year. Matthias recently graduated from the Graduate Institute of International Relations at the University of Geneva and holds an MA in international relations. He lives in Geneva. Continuing the tradition of very long email addresses amongst the At-Large staff, he can be reached at matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org (or, in short form, matthias(a)icann.org ). For those who, like me, often produce inaccurate pronunciations of others’ names, his forename is pronounced “muhteeahs” :) Please welcome him aboard. We’re very glad to have him! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
by Michael Maranda Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

I'm replying within region - if members within NARALO share some of Danny's concerns below - what can best be done within NARALO to address them? Danny - have you participated in the NARALO conference calls? Have you raised these issues there? I am not answering in this way to attack. My thought is that from NARALO standpoint we can address many of these points. To make my position clear - many of the issues Danny raises point to problems we should address. Not that I agree with everything - whether priorities or analysis or conclusion - but it seems to me that there is a lot of structure that winds up protecting the interests of certain constituencies at the expense of many others, and of the health of the Net. What is the relevance of Internet Governance to/for the average user? (now further circumscribe the issues to the domain name system) Two dimensions draw my attention --- structural-policy decisions affecting everyone and conflicts within the space those decisions have established ( i.e. the equivalent of torts). In terms of the latter: When there are grievances, what are the meaningful options? Is there a place we can direct people where we can say that their grievance will be handled fairly? In the absence of these, what are the options? This brings us to the former - the policy that gets set by ICANN and other bodies. Either groups/classes/individuals feel there is a clear, reasonable and fair venue in which to address maters and modify policy, or the legitimacy of the system is brought into question. Even where there are clear issues (Tasting in it's several flavors; Artificial Scarcity in the Name System) - what is the most effective manner in which to bring them to the fore? What is our expectation for change to a better policy? What are the forces we have to contend with? How do we educate others on these points? On Feb 17, 2008 12:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Michael, > > Thanks for the feedback. I would be sympathetic with > your position regarding weighted support for the > end-user community if it could be demonstrated that > ALAC reps in other regions have been busy formulating > policy to deal with non-registrant end-user concerns > that theoretically could take precedence over current > registrant concerns... but this hasn't happened. > > What we have instead is a bunch of folk who by dint of > their Civil Society involvement are now being paid to > attend ICANN sessions, folk that seem to have no real > interest in anything other than networking and getting > together for the next IGF session. > > These aren't the representatives of "the people". > They don't speak for the at-large as do the voices on > Slashdot, the voices in the tech blogs, or the > complainants in the public forums. At the ALAC helm > we tend to find the ivory tower crowd that would > rather spend their time theorizing about Internet > Governance than actually dealing with immediate > problems in the DNS. > > Just have a look through the Euralo discussion list > and see if you can find a single policy initiative > pursued in the last twelve months. You won't. That > discussion list (and others) are a wasteland bereft of > any real work or attention to either registrant or > non-registrant concerns. > > Those that are getting a free ride are offering up no > more than a token amount of work and our region > suffers as a consequence. > > If you look at the track record of the SSAC, you can > point to a number of significant achievements -- > documents on timely issues emerge on a frequent basis. > Since LA we have seen no less than five serious > documents prepared: on WHOIS and spamming, on > fast-flux, on front-running, on DNSSEC. > > Where is the ALAC equivalent? Where is the > well-considered advice? Perhaps some consider waiting > until the last day of the JPA comment period before > soliciting advice from constituent orgs to be an > appropriate way of handling things... I don't... but > it demonstrates how the ALAC currently handles things > -- irresponsibly and at the last minute. > > This is no longer acceptable. After six years of this > BS so far, how much longer can we patiently sit back > listening to the refrain that "these are new people > and we have to give them time"? > > The structure is flawed and the current dynamic is > failing to produce results. If our region is not to > be protected in the midst of this morass, then we > should scrap the ALAC in its entirety or arrive at a > weighted formula that will serve to better protect our > own interests. > > regards, > Danny > > > --- Michael Maranda <mm(a)michaelmaranda.net> wrote: > > > I am sympathetic to part of the argument here, but > > not the entirety. > > Namely, I dont see At Large as exclusively about > > those participating in > > domain registration market. The end-users (and > > potential end users) are the > > widest possible set (i.e. everybody) under at-large. > > How then does the math > > of apportionment break down then? > > > > Nonetheless - organizing the concerns of those who > > do or might wish to > > register a domain - should be one of our goals. How > > best to achieve that? > > It's generally those who find themselves in an > > unfortunate situation that > > find themselves motivated to do something but with > > no obvious remedy. I > > assume some of the ALSs (perhaps a small few) may be > > documenting these > > complaints. I suggest that it would be a great > > service to have some sort of > > clearinghouse on complaints (if one is not in > > existence - and if one already > > does - make it globally useful) and use At-Large > > leverage to make it > > meaningful for end-users. > > > > On Feb 17, 2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger > > <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Evan, > > > > > > I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't > > > working and what can be done to correct the > > situation. > > > > > > Let's start by having a look at the worldwide > > > distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over > > which > > > ICANN exerts policy control). > > > > > > com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 > > > registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of > > those > > > registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region > > has > > > only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- > > a > > > situation which does little to protect our > > interests. > > > > > > So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region > > > feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC > > > members could care less as they tend to live > > mostly in > > > the ccTLD world. > > > > > > Why are we at this point? Why is it that our > > region > > > doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the > > ALAC? > > > This is purely based on a distribution that > > reflects > > > "political correctness" moreso than the realities > > of > > > the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil > > > society types that only comment on the lists as > > the > > > time approaches for another IGF session; it's not > > > acceptable to most North Americans that continue > > to be > > > affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and > > who > > > are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver > > results. > > > > > > The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend > > the > > > user interest; instead, they have chosen to > > tacitly > > > discriminate against North Americans by ignoring > > their > > > immediate and ongoing concerns. > > > > > > It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt > > > Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with > > > transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC > > will > > > continue to stumble along and produce statements > > on > > > ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead > > of > > > dealing with the serious problems at hand. > > > > > > It's time for not only an operational overhaul of > > the > > > ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a > > > structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and > > > assigns representation that reflects actual > > current > > > worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted > > voting > > > is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new > > > reality in the ALAC. > > > > > > If that means that North America will be assigned > > 66 > > > percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time > > -- > > > so be it. At some point soon the balance will > > switch > > > to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the > > > weighting to be changed to relect the new mix. > > > > > > The politically correct distribution that we > > suffer > > > under has not worked out. A change is most > > certainly > > > in order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > > > > > > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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://www.alac.icann.org > > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >

8 17

Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Reply to Peter Dengate-Thrush (copied to the NARALO): Peter, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I share your view of the importance of feeding timely advice into the policy-making and coordinating processes handled via the Supporting Organizations; this is precisely what Advisory Committees are supposed to do. Im further appreciative of your assessment that an Advisory Body whose sole focus is upon the needs of the general registrant community "may be a useful development", and I will be happy to work with those on the GA and NARALO lists that have already endorsed this concept to see it carefully distinguished per the guidelines that you have tendered. It is my expectation that a more formal proposal will be put forth in advance of the Paris session that will clarify for the board the extent of the interests that are not being properly served by the current structure. With regard to your query on the topic of registrar contracts, I look forward to the self-regulatory activities that will be pursued by the registrar community and believe that the guidance offered by such an AC will doubtless facilitate work in the SO community to buttress that self-regulatory effort through the consensus policy process. Understanding that an Advisory Committee is, per the bylaws, a creation of the board, it would have been presumptive and inappropriate to act to self-form such a group, but I am willing to work with others to clarify the ACs likely future membership and its goals in much the same manner that the earlier At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) facilitated the emergence of the ALAC; additionally, per your request a clear cost benefit analysis will of course be provided. As bottom-up momentum is already developing with regard to this proposal, it is my expectation that the clarity of purpose you seek will soon emerge in upcoming discussions. Thank you for sharing your views. I look forward to further discussions as needed. best wishes, Danny Hello Danny, On 18/02/2008, at 8:59 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > Peter, > > I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies. > > The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and > operational review cycle has been to ensure that the > ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and timely advice from members of the community on vexing issues that require an organizational response. Actually, I don't agree that this is the overarching goal; the board does not seek advice from members of the community in this fashion, nor for that purpose. The policy making and coordinating, which is our major function, is done via the SO's. The board's interest in that "timely advice" is in seeing that it is fed into the policy-making processes, which, as you know, we do not want to be happening at the Board. > While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and > supporting organizations whose responsibilities > include putting forth the general registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. > > What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds support and drive the ICANN process. > This may be a useful development. I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups ( Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large. I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group,necessarily a subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure? > Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory > Committee. The registrant community needs a strong > advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued focus on general registrant issues. > I assume that you are limiting this interest group to registrants of some, or possibly all gTLDs? You will know that ccTLD registrants rights are not a matter for the ICANN board. And, I assume, the smaller chartered TLDs like .museum are not going to require this group. Nor can I see much intersection with the registrants of .asia or .eu. I wonder if your real focus should be the registrar contracts? The real way forward, as you know, is not for a letter to the board with an idea, but to set about self forming such a group, to clarify its membership, and goals. A clear cost benefit analysis is also required - what precisely is the harm that this is intended to remedy? This is the bottom-up process which characterized the formation of the existing constituencies. Once this has some momentum from the ground-up, with greater clarity of purpose, we could look at it further. Regards Peter ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

ICANN.org Announcement: Asia-Pacific Internet Users Big Part of ICANNs New Delhi Meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

Asia-Pacific Internet Users Big Part of ICANN's New Delhi Meeting http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14feb08.htm Ceremony recognizes Regional At-Large Organization, first Asia-Pacific At-Large General Assembly 14 February 2008 NEW DELHI, INDIA: Individual Internet users from Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands have direct input into the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a fact recognized today with the ceremonial signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Internet user groups who participate in the Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO). The APRALO conducted its first General Assembly as a part of ICANN's 31st International Public Meeting in New Delhi. They discussed issues that will affect Internet users throughout the region and the world. The Internet user groups who are a part of APRALO are incredibly diverse, and include users from India, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. "Today's ceremony recognizes the ICANN community's success in creating a formal, global structure to help ensure ideas and feedback from individual Internet users around the world is heard in our policy processes," said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "ICANN's work to introduce a process for applying for new top level domains – the part after the dot – especially those using the more than 100,000 characters from the languages of the world which do not use the Latin character set – will benefit from formal inputs through the Regional At-large Organizations worldwide. The Asia-Pacific RALO is a key contributor to this process." There are now more than 100 user groups taking part in ICANN's five Regional At-large Organizations, or RALOs, from the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, Europe, and Africa. APRALO was created on 30 March 2007 and has been informing the region's individual Internet users about ICANN activities and providing advice to ICANN on their behalf for nearly a year. The RALOs have direct input to ICANN, especially through the international At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which represents Internet users in ICANN and whose members are chosen largely by the RALOs. "ICANN's ongoing coordination of the domain name system, and its policy work, has a large impact on the Internet and the more than one billion people around the world who use it – and the billions more who should be able to use it," said Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair. "By bringing together Internet users from across the globe, the RALOs are at the heart of ensuring that users have a say on what's happening at ICANN." More information on the participation of individual Internet users in ICANN is available at http://alac.icann.org/ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Final WebWatchstatement on JPA - READ NOW - HIGH IMPORTANCE
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

Hi all, Your Secretariat is coming to you with her tail betwixt her legs. On Wedneseay, in Delhi, we had a major briefing on the JPA. For those of you as unaccustomed to acronyms as I was, this means the Joint Policy Agreement between the US and ICANN. It is about to end in 2009 and its ICANNs line that they should now be free from the JPA and go it alone (without having to account to any external agency like the US gov). Consumers Watch (Beau's company) put out the below. It is also supported by an excellent document put out by Danny Younger. Both Evan and I support the view of Consumer's Watch but we need to get input by the NARALO. Unfortunately, we need to get this in for tomorrow (Friday) morning. Neither of us realized that the timing was so frigging short - which is why I am so sorry to not have gotten this out to you sooner. PLEASE read the below and let me know what you think of it RIGHT AWAY. I will bring your voice to the talks and it will be incorporated into the documents that NARALO and ALAC will be submitting to the board (two separate documents). The ALAC document has to incorporate the views of all of the regions, which are really quite diverse (from some saying that ICANN should be allowed to fly alone RIGHT NOW, to the Consumer's Watch document) and; therefore, will be pretty middle of the road, IMO. I am thinking that the NARALO document should be more to the point of what OUR region wants. So, please read the below and give me your input by Friday morning, India time. It is now in the middle of the day, Thursday for the NARALO so I am really hoping that some of you can read this and give input immediately. Again, I am so sorry for giving you so little time for this. D Greetings. Here is the finalized WebWatch statement on the Joint Project Agreement. Thanks to all of you for your meaningful feedback. My laptop is officially dead for the duration, so I am writing this from the Taj Palace business center -- so if you have comments, please talk to me in the flesh. Document attached and pasted below. COMMENTS OF CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH, Consumers Union of the U.S., On ICANN Joint Project Agreement with U.S. Commerce Department February 14, 2008 Consumer Reports WebWatch of the Consumers Union, representing 9 million consumers in the United States and Canada, supports ICANN's efforts to evolve and move forward toward an existence apart from the JPA agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, at this mid-term review phase, we do not believe the organization is ready to function without a similar accountability mechanism to the JPA in place. Major changes need to occur within the organization to assure more efficient and meaningful user community representation, with long-term guarantees that such representation would endure unforeseen scenarios in the future. Our justifications for this position are simple: First, we do not believe the structure of ICANN as it exists today sufficiently takes into account the needs and opinions of end-users. Based on a review of operational documents and bylaws, we do not see any sort of language guaranteeing meaningful user participation into the future. To address this issue, Consumers Union believes the at-large community needs multiple seats on the ICANN board; the initial bylaws, in fact, called for fully half the board to be elected by the at-large. We base this opinion on Consumer Reports WebWatch's own 11-month experience as an "at-large structure" recruited by ICANN, and our eight months' experience as an elected representative to the at-large advisory committee. Second, though the outreach work of ICANN at-large staff Nick Ashton-Hart and Kieran McCarthy is commendable, ICANN's staff and public communications budget is insufficient to address a much larger problem of outreach. To elaborate: Currently, the NA-RALO is made up of a scant handful of organizations. While these are valuable partners, in no way could the NA-RALO be characterized as a viable representation of a broad-based user community in the United States and Canada. Further, many consumer organizations in the United States with a mission that includes the intersection of technology and consumer issues, remain skeptical of ICANN's intentions and its viability as an organization that takes consumer views into account. Until something is done to bridge this gap and ICANN demonstrates its good intentions and long-term structural viability to organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and others, we do not believe ICANN can be considered to be acting in accordance with the concerns of the user community in North America. In addition, there are no guarantees beyond mention in the bylaws that the "at-large community," itself currently under review, would remain a part of the ICANN structure 20 or even 10 years from now. The at-large advisory committee is without a vote in any meaningful policy forum. Without direct user community representation on the ICANN board, we do not believe ICANN is truly acting as a "multi-stakeholder" organization. We are concerned, in fact, that ICANN does sees itself as a multi-stakeholder organization, with industry, government, and industry groups as the stakeholders. It does not help matters much that many within the ICANN community view domain name registrants as the Internet's "end-users," and therefore the farthest realm the ICANN needs to reach. Until these issues are addressed we do not believe the organization is ready to progress beyond the JPA, which refers to "the global participation of all stakeholders" and "mechanisms for involvement of those affected by the ICANN policies." As the Internet-using public is a key set of stakeholders affected by ICANN's policies, it is critical, including for Internet security and stability, that the organization be accountable to the public and account effectively for its input. We believe the following three things need to happen in order for ICANN to move forward beyond the JPA: 1. Address lack of meaningful user representation, and assure its long-term viability within the organization, by creating multiple "user community" seats on the ICANN board. 2. Allocate significant budget to get the message that it has done so, out to civil society stakeholder groups in North America and the global user community. 3. Take administrative steps to ensure the long-term structural existence of user community presence and participation in decision-making. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Beau Brendler, Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch, and member, ICANN at-large advisory committee

2 1

FW: [ALAC-Internal] Danny Younger statement on JPA
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Hi all, Here is the background document that Danny was kind enough to provide to us to go along with the Consumer's Watch statement that I forwarded earlier. If you wish more info, this is a great place to start... ----------------------------------- Colleagues: After a brief discussion with Cheryl, I am sending the draft comments WebWatch (and Consumers Union as a whole) plans to make on the JPA. I will send along Danny Younger's comments momentarily. While I realize that not everyone on the ALAC will share my views and Danny's, I hope you were as concerned as I was that during Paul Twomey's and Peter Dengate-Thrush's preamble to the public comment period on the JPA, there was not a single mention of ALAC and the user community. This is the second speech I have heard by Paul Twomey that seems to characterize "multi-stakeholder" to mean: industry, government and industry associations. Nonsense! Further, I don't believe it's in the ICANN's best interest to be lobbying the ICANN community, via e-mail and other means, to send in a pre-formatted letter to the NTIA saying that it's ready to spread its wings and fly. I will refine the following statement somewhat, but the gist of what we are going to say during the public comment period here, and then to the NTIA, is this: Though Consumers Union, representing 9 million consumers in the United States and Canada, supports the ICANN's eventual emancipation from U.S. Commerce Department oversight, we do not believe the organization is yet ready to function without a similar accountability mechanism in place. Our justifications are simple and logical: First, we do not believe the current structure of ICANN sufficiently takes into account the needs and opinions of end-users. Based on a half-year's experience as an ALS and a member of the at-large advisory committee itself, Consumers Union believes the at-large community needs at minimum a single voting seat on the ICANN board, at best two seats. Second, ICANN must immediately dedicate a significant budget to outreach and external communications (beyond the allocations to at-large, administered by ICANN staff with the ALAC's input) in order to efficiently engage the user community. To further explain: Currently, the NA-RALO is made up of a scant handful of organizations. In no way could the NA-RALO be characterized as a viable representation of a broad-based user community. Further, many consumer organizations in the United States, with an interest in civil society and technology matters, are skeptical of ICANN's intentions and its viability as an organization that takes consumer views into account. Until something is done to bridge this gap, and ICANN demonstrates otherwise to organizations such as the Center for Democracy and Technology, the EFF and others, and puts in place a sufficient governance mechansism for integrating that voice, ICANN cannot be considered to be acting in accordance with U.S. consumer and user concerns at hand. There are no guarantees beyond mention in the bylaws that the "at-large community," itself currently under review, would remain a part of the ICANN structure 20 or even 10 years from now. Without representation on the ICANN board from the user community, we do not believe ICANN is truly acting as a "multi-stakeholder" organization. Until this issue is addressed we do not believe the organization is ready to be freed from oversight. -----Original Message----- From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Mon 2/11/2008 6:32 AM To: carlos aguirre Cc: ALAC internal list Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Meeting with NCUC I can confirm that the Agra Room is available at that time. Due to the notice, unfortunately interpretation and recording of the meeting will not be available - I trust that this is OK. May I ask Members to remember to let me ensure that meeting space is available before confirming meetings in meeting rooms please? On 11 Feb 2008, at 16:14, carlos aguirre wrote: > > Sorry: the meeting with NCUC is already arranged. > Carlos Dionisio Aguirre > > abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - > *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 > www.sitioderecho.com.ar > www.densi.com.ar > > > > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:53:24 +0000 > > From: evan(a)telly.org > > To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com > > CC: iza(a)anr.org; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Meeting with NCUC and GAC > > > > carlos aguirre wrote: > > > Evan : go ahead !!!! > > > > I found, when doing this, that the event conflicts with the GAC/ > Board > > meeting scheduled for 16:45. > > > > http://del.icann.org/node/78 > > > > How does this affect the plan? > > > > - Evan > > Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de > tus artistas favoritos. MSN en Concierto > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > ALAC Official: http://alac.icann.org <http://alac.icann.org/> > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/> *** Scanned *** Scanned

1 0

[Fwd: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Proposed ALAC-statement regarding JPA]
by Jacqueline A.Morris Feb. 14, 2008

Feb. 14, 2008

Dear All, Please see the draft below of a proposed At Large statement on the JPA. Time is short - the deadline is tomorrow, but as much participation as possible is the At Large way, so please do what you can re comments. Jacqueline >> Annette Muehlberg wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> i think by replacing the last paragraph we could, wihtout dismissing other >> positions, reach a consensus. please have a look at the last alternative >> paragraph. >> >> warm greetings >> >> annette >> >> >> >> >> >> Proposed ALAC-statement regarding JPA: >> >> As the JPA (between the US Government and ICANN) is under Review, ALAC >> wishes to underline the unique opportunity the occasion offers to realize >> the original goals that led to the formation of ICANN. These include, inter >> alia, acknowledgement of the international nature of ICANN, support of the >> multi-stakeholder bottom-up approach to the management of ICANN, and the >> provision of viable and stable channels for the involvement of individual >> Internet users in the ICANN policy formation process. Measures must be >> implemented to ensure non-discriminatory availability of ICANN/IANA services >> as well as the opportunity for the involvement of global individual users in >> the ICANN process. >> >> In its role as the voice of the individual Internet users, ALAC firmly >> believes that the current multi-stakeholder framework at ICANN should be >> further strengthened to allow more proactive involvement of end-users. The >> process to full participation of individual users through the ALAC/RALO >> (Regional At-Large Organization) mechanism is being undertaken at this >> moment. There is, however, a lack of incentives for the participants, >> especially a lack of direct involvement at the decision-making levels of >> ICANN. Therefore, we think that ICANN should find ways to implement adequate >> representation of individual users at the decision-making levels of ICANN so >> that a real multi-stakeholder framework is achieved. >> >> In addition, we believe that no government should have a pre-eminent role in >> DNS management and exercise power over database changes and root-server >> data. We suggest that an institutional form should be found as soon as >> possible so that ICANN does not lie under the authority of any single >> national legislation. We also strongly advocate transparency and openness in >> the process of making any structural change in the ICANN framework for the >> coming transition. >> >> However, at this mid-term review phase, we do not believe the organization >> is ready to function without a similar accountability mechanism to the JPA >> in place. >> >> >> Alternative replacing the last paragraph: >> >> We are concerned that the successor oversight framework is still not clear >> and ICANN needs to clarify the transitional arrangements with regard to >> accountability and transparency as well as to allow further definition and >> evolution of the multi-stakeholder model of governance under which it >> operates. >> >> >> > > >

3 2