- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

asking advice on intros to better broadband
by Dharma Dailey Aug. 12, 2007

Aug. 12, 2007

Hi Everybody, A few of us are pulling together "basic basic" information on why people should get involved in changing/developing/watchdogging their communication systems. These "basic basic" booklets will be on the web. Portions of them, such as charts and such, will be formatted for printing out and for power point presentations. They will be free for anyone to use. Our audience is the general public in the US or those who work with the general public in the US to expand knowledge and involvement on these issues. The project has a specific focus on municipal and community networks: thus these tools are meant to supplement the kind of presentation you would give to a local neighborhood association or for a print out you could hand to your alderman. Those of you who do general education/outreach on broadband in your community or play along on TV please look at these blurbs below and tell me if this looks like the kind of material that would be helpful to you in your work. If it wouldn't be helpful that would also be good to know. If you do public outreach on broadband and want something in here that isn't-- please let me know!!! If you are interested in the project, ping me and I'll keep you in the loop. Thanks, Dharma Dailey Overview- Why should I care about communication? What is a network? How do different network choices affect my ability to communicate? Examples- Real World Examples of Who's Been There and Done That (examples will be organized categorically by the kind of network and the kind of business/sustainability model) Process-- How do networks get built? How do all the pieces and players fit together? (i'm dying for a couple of flow charts that show people the typical muni rollout.from start to finish on a single piece of paper- and such ) Choices- Business Models, Key Technologies, and Handy Dandy Networking Tools (matrix of types of networks; chart of public giveaways and subsidies for each communications industry; networking technology cheat sheet with pictures, matrix of business models) Impact- How do you know if a network works? What are the tools for evaluating the social utility of a network? What are the tools for evaluating the economic impact of a network? Who watchdogs vendors? If things aren't working well, what recourse do you have?

1 0

Fwd: [alerts-text] ICANN Launches Latest Consultation on New Top-Level Domains
by Bret Fausett Aug. 10, 2007

Aug. 10, 2007

Begin forwarded message: > From: ICANN News Alert <ICANN-Alerts(a)icann.org> > Date: August 10, 2007 12:07:28 PM PDT > To: <alerts-text(a)greenriver.icann.org> > Subject: [alerts-text] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Launches Latest > Consultation on New Top-Level Domains > Reply-To: ICANN-Alerts(a)icann.org > > ICANN > > <http://www.icann.org/> > > News Alert > > <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10aug07.htm> > > ________________________________ > > > ICANN Launches Latest Consultation on New Top-Level Domains > > Public, stakeholder comments sought on proposals for new top-level > domain process > > 10 August 2007 > > MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names > and Numbers (ICANN) is taking another step towards its goal of > bringing new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) online with today’s > launch of a public consultation on a key report from ICANN’s > Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). > > “This is all about providing Internet users with choice. More top- > level domains -- the part of the domain name that comes after the > last dot -- mean more competition, more options, and the > possibility for more targeted or user-specific domain names,” said > Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN’s President and CEO. “When coupled with > ICANN’s current work on introducing internationalized domain names, > it is possible that hundreds and, eventually, more than 1,000 new > TLDs could be created.” > > The GNSO report describes proposed global policies related to the > creation of new top-level domains that advance ICANN’s mission of > preserving the security, stability and interoperability of the > Internet. > > “The report raises some interesting questions -- like how to deal > with proposals that may be considered controversial by some groups > or individuals. That’s why it’s so important that as many people as > possible share their advice and help us ensure that the new gTLD > process works,” added Dr Twomey. > > While all input is welcomed and encouraged, the consultation is > looking for comments in a number of areas: > > * the package of principles, proposed policy recommendations and > implementation guidelines for new gTLDs, > * the selection criteria for new top-level domains related to > applicants, strings, and processes, > * contractual conditions for new top-level domain operators, and > * proposed procedures for resolving objections to strings or > applicants. > > The specific policy recommendations, as well as the online comment > forum, and links to provide comments are available at <http:// > www.icann.org/public_comment/#gtld-draft-final-report>. The > consultation closes at 4 pm PDT on 30 August 2007. > > A complete summary and analysis of community feedback will be made > available at the end of the comment period, and considered by the > GNSO Council prior to its vote on the report on 6 September 2007. > If the Council accepts the policy recommendations, it will be then > be considered by the ICANN Board. > > “The policy proposals laid out in the report have been generated > from the ground up, and the consultation is ICANN’s opportunity to > fine tune them with the help of the interested Internet community,” > added Dr Twomey. > > About ICANN: > > ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet's > system of unique identifiers like domain names (like .org, .museum > and country codes like .uk) and the addresses used in a variety of > Internet protocols that help computers reach each other over the > Internet. Careful management of these resources is vital to the > Internet's operation, so ICANN's global stakeholders meet regularly > to develop policies that ensure the Internet's ongoing security and > stability. ICANN is an internationally organized, public benefit > non-profit company. For more information please visit: > www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> . > > Media Contacts: > > Jason Keenan > Media Adviser, ICANN (USA) > Ph: +1 310 382 4004 > E: jason.keenan(a)icann.org > > International: > Andrew Robertson Edelman (London) > Ph: +44 7921 588 770 > E: andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please visit <http:// > www.icann.org/newsletter> > > If you have questions or comments about this mailing list, send an > email to ICANN-Alerts(a)icann.org > > >

1 0

FW: [Secretariat] Fwd: [APAC-Discuss] Change of deadlines: ICANN 2008NomCom Rep
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 10, 2007

Aug. 10, 2007

See below Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: secretariat-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:secretariat-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:35 AM To: secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [Secretariat] Fwd: [APAC-Discuss] Change of deadlines: ICANN 2008NomCom Rep Dear Secretariats: I wanted you to see the email below from Raj in AP. It really is important for the regions to decide by 16th September who they want to see ALAC appoint to the NomCom seats. Begin forwarded message: From: "Rajnesh D. Singh" <rajnesh(a)pacificit.org> Date: 9 August 2007 13:00:37 BDT To: Asia-Pacific Discuss <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [APAC-Discuss] Change of deadlines: ICANN 2008 NomCom Rep Reply-To: rajnesh(a)pacificit.org Colleagues, With reference to the recent request on this list by Adam Peake, Associate Chair of current NomCom, revised deadlines are as follows: Deadline for nominations from ALS': September 3rd 2007 2300 UTC Vetting of nominations and consensus process: September 4th to September 10th Reach consensus: by September 10th Vote (if no consensus): September 11th to September 15th Announce and relay result: September 16th 2007 The website has been updated as well: https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?nominations_to_icann_2008_nominat ing_committee Please action as necessary and I look forward to your input. -- Kind regards, Rajnesh D. Singh Chair, ICANN Asia Pacific Regional At-Large Organisation www.apralo.org _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

4 3

Conversation with Dave Piscitello
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 7, 2007

Aug. 7, 2007

Hello, everyone... A little while ago I had a conversation with Dave Piscitello of the SSAC and Nick Ashton-Hart. The substance of the conversation was, what could WebWatch do, and/or what could be done in general, to connect consumers to some of the ICANN discussions about security and stability issues. As you know, one of the issues I am trying to confront is how to interest and educate consumers about the work ICANN is doing and what its role in Internet governance is, while trying to represent their interests as best and appropriately as possible. The conversation was to determine if there are studies WebWatch might undertake in the area of consumer protection and domain names. We also talked about some of the work SSAC is doing with the Anti-Phishing Working Group and discussed the possibility of convening some people from these groups in Los Angeles. We're also trying to address questions like, if consumers knew more about things like DNSSEC and signed domains and the like (and their cost), would consumers want to somehow pay to participate in an Internet with more secure domain names? I've also begun talking with Nick about some possibilities for consumer education, that would include creating some consumer-friendly content. Would be happy to hear your comments about this and other security issues. As soon as a public version of the SSAC August report is available we can post it here. Regards, Beau Brendler, Director Consumer Reports WebWatch http://www.consumerwebwatch.org

5 7

Developing accountability for registrars discussion
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 7, 2007

Aug. 7, 2007

Hello, there. I wanted to make this group aware of an off-list discussion forwarded to me, which I responded to, related to the RAA evaluations and creating some sort of system of accountability for registrars. I am not in the RAA working group, and probably don't have time to be, but this group may want to contribute to this discussion or have its own here, as I think the RAA work should be of considerable interest to consumers. Danny Younger responds to Seth Reiss and my response is last. Beau Brendler Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch http://www.consumerwebwatch.org From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> Date: 20 July 2007 18:21:49 BDT To: "Seth M. Reiss" <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com>, raa-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] Starting the discussion Hi Seth, Registrars have, on several occasions, attempted to create a code of conduct. Their most recent version (which dates back several years) is here: http://www.icann-registrars.org/html_docs/CodeofConduct3.htm The list of registrars willing to agree to this code of conduct -- zero -- is maintained here: http://www.icann-registrars.org/listcodeofconductsubscribing.htm One approach might be to have the registries each individually craft a code of conduct for their accredited registrars (this is what Eurid, the .eu registry operator did) -- see http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/CoC/rules_proc_en.pdf So far, these codes rely on voluntary compliance; unfortunately, there is little actual incentive for registrars to comply. regards, Danny --- "Seth M. Reiss" <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: I like Vittorio's idea of developing a best practices industry code for registrars. Registrars can decide to comply on a voluntary basis and perhaps even undergo audits with independent companies so compliance can be checked. Registrants can decide to pay a few extra dollars to use compliant registrars and obtain the additional security. This would keep ICANN out of the policing roles, which I suspect it prefers to avoid. Beau Brendler wrote: This exchange was forwarded to me and I wanted to offer whatever help we can on this topic, as I think it is an important one. Briefly, WebWatch about five years ago now developed a basic set of guidelines to "improve the credibility of Web sites," as we said at the time. We also developed several sets of category-specific guidelines (one for search engines, another for travel Web sites, another for health Web sites). We had some good success with the general guidelines, and some less measurable but notable success with the more industry-specific ones. I wanted to briefly outline here how we did it, because I think some of the principles might be portable. * Survey research of consumers. We did a national poll of U.S. Web users (six months experience minimum) over 18 to find out what types of characteristics of Web sites they considered "credible." We did this so that we could point to empirical data in any forthcoming campaign to get companies, Web publishers, etc., to join -- so that we didn't turn people off by saying, "we're Consumer Reports, and here's what you should do to make your Web site more credible." The guidelines are here: http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm The national poll was expensive but was probably some of the most important money we spent. * Publication of guidelines. We used the survey research to create the guidelines, then publicized them and went directly to a number of companies, some of them Fortune 500, to get feedback. * Compliance mechanism. We stopped short of creating a seal of approval, since our research showed that such seals tend to be much more popular among the community of sealholders than recognizable by consumers. In addition, seals can be faked, upkeep and policing is costly, etc. So we started a pledge campaign, with an online form, where companies and Web publishers could make a promise to uphold the guidelines. Our staff would then review the site, and pass it or fail it (about 90 percent of the failed sites made changes and improvements and re-pledged, and passed). * We listed the sites on a page on our Web site (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/praise-worthy.cfm) and allow participating sites to link back to the guidelines page (not the page where their company is named). We still continue to get pledges and add company names to the list. * We created a national advertising campaign to promote the sites that pledged, and the guidelines themselves as a sort of consumer bill of rights. I think a similar system could be used for the registrars. Indeed, it is voluntary compliance, but the "wisdom of the masses" assists in enforcement -- we do get e-mails from consumers when they interact with a company on the compliance list that doesn't measure up. In those cases, we investigate, then publicize the investigation and the result. The low compliance rate in the venture you describe below may be due to a number of factors, but I would guess if there were more third-party involvement it might create more incentive.. _______________________________________________ RAA-WG mailing list RAA-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations "Whenever a single political movement corners power we find ourselves in the realm of totalitarian kitsch." -- Kundera

5 5

Massive Internet Impact Possible Due to Relaxed TLD Application Process
by Robert Guerra Aug. 7, 2007

Aug. 7, 2007

http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_impact_tld_application/ Massive Internet Impact Possible Due to Relaxed TLD Application Process Jul 31, 2007 10:36 AM PST By CircleID Reporter Kieren McCarthy’s latest column at Guardian Unlimited discusses the massive impact—and controversies—that the new top-level domain (TLD) names will bring about. The rules for the creation of TLDs are being relaxed starting next year. From the article: “From 2008, anyone wanting their own piece of the internet is welcome to apply for it. It won’t be cheap (there will an application fee of around $100,000) and it won’t be simple (you have to prove you are capable of running a complex piece of the net’s infrastructure)—but it could mean a change in the way the online world works.” Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! may all own their own TLD one day - ‘news.google’, ‘finance.yahoo’ or ‘games.msn’ - possibilities are endless. Read Full Story at Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/31/comment.internet

2 1

ARIN / Statement on the future of addressing policy
by Robert Guerra Aug. 4, 2007

Aug. 4, 2007

ARIN has just released a statement on the future of addressing policy. Specifically addressing the future of IPv4 addressing. http://www.arin.net/announcements/20070701.html What ARIN does is to emphasize the current policies and say they will be enforced even stronger than today if needed. I.e. there is no announcement of a change in policy. The resource-allocation policy under which ARIN operates has been produced through an open, transparent, and democratic process over more than a decade. ARIN is fully dedicated to preserving universal access and stable functionality of the Internet, and our policies do not encourage profit-driven speculation in the Internet addresses. The risk, if policies regarding review of usage of the address is not enforced for example, is that holders of large address blocks can create an artificial shortage of addresses in the market (that will exists for IPv4 addresses). By ensuring only few addresses “are for sale”, the holders of the large address blocks can make sure the price per address stays high. At least higher than what it would have been if all IPv4 addresses that are not in use (according to the usage policies the RIRs have set) would have been “available”.

1 0

CIRA Launches Search for New CEO
by Robert Guerra Aug. 3, 2007

Aug. 3, 2007

I've just read on Michael Geist's blog that CIRA is looking for a new CEO. Here's the announcement.. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2149/196/ CIRA announced this evening that Bernard Turcotte, its long-time CEO, will be leaving the organization later this year. The dot-ca domain agency is launching a nation-wide search for a replacement. http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/206.html August 2, 2007 CIRA Launches Search for New CEO Ottawa, August 2, 2007 - The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) announced today that founding CEO Bernard Turcotte will leave CIRA later this year and that CIRA is launching a nation-wide search for the best candidate to succeed him. "We wish to thank Bernard for his tremendous contribution to CIRA's growth and development since 2001", said Debi Rosati, Chair of CIRA's Board of Directors. "He has served the Canadian Internet community and overseen the development of our organization from its beginnings into one of the world's best-run country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), with over 850,000 dot-ca domain name registrations, supported by a great team of dedicated professionals." "CIRA has been a tremendous experience for me and it has been a pleasure to work with the exceptional team which has come together over the last few years," said Mr. Turcotte, whose experience also includes ground-breaking contributions at CANARIE, CRIM, RISQ and CDNCC, all key players in Canada's successful Internet adoption. "There comes a time when it is right to move on to the next great challenge. It has been truly rewarding to participate first-hand, and to witness the impact CIRA has made nationally and internationally to ensure that all Canadians have and continue to benefit fully from dot- ca Internet domain name registrations." "All of us who use the Canadian Internet every day owe Bernard a debt of gratitude," said Ms. Rosati. About CIRA CIRA is the not-for-profit, member-driven organization responsible for the management of over 850,000 domain names that comprise Canada’s unique dot-ca domain namespace. It is responsible for setting and maintaining policies that support a strong Canadian Internet presence, and representing Canadian interests in international Internet governance. - 30 – Media Inquiries: David Hicks Director, Marketing and Communications 613-286-5288 david.hicks(a)cira.ca

1 0

Fwd: Placements for law students with Pro Bono Students Canada (PBSC)
by Robert Guerra Aug. 3, 2007

Aug. 3, 2007

Dear NA RALO colleagues: As you can see from the email below, Privaterra has been offered the help of some pro-bono law students over the fall/winter. I'd like to - share - this opportunity with NA RALO, as I think one or more law students could prove quite helpful for us to help develop white papers, reports and contributions to ongoing ICANN processes. Should it be of interest, then i'd have to work with some of you to help complete the project description and other related documents. comments? regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Begin forwarded message: > From: PBSC Toronto <probono.students(a)utoronto.ca> > Date: June 19, 2007 10:16:35 AM EDT (CA) > To: rguerra(a)privaterra.ca > Subject: Placements for law students with Pro Bono Students Canada > (PBSC) > > Dear Robert, > > Hi, I'm Kenneth, the new U of T PBSC Program Coordinator this year, > and it was really nice talking to you over the phone just now. > Attached please find five documents, and I will need you to fill in > three and submit them back to me before the end of July, in order > for me to match Privaterra with law student volunteers this fall -- > please complete for us the project description form, the > organization profile form, and the disclaimer/release of liability > form. It would be best if you could e-mail me the project > description and the contact form so that I have an electronic copy, > but for the release I will need you to fax or mail it since it > requires a signature. Our fax number is 416-934-4536. > > As soon as I receive all of this documentation from you, I will be > able to include Privaterra in our database, from which our students > can select the types of projects that they are interested in > working on. If you have any questions in the interim please feel > free to contact me via e-mail or phone. I hope to hear from you soon! > > Cheers, > Kenneth Kenneth Li > U of T Student Program Coordinator > Pro Bono Students Canada > > Faculty of Law, University of Toronto > 655 Spadina Ave. > Toronto, ON M5S 2H9 > > Phone: (416) 946-0143 > Fax: (416) 934-4536 > E-mail: probono.students(a)utoronto.ca

3 6

Fwd: GNSO Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
by Bret Fausett Aug. 2, 2007

Aug. 2, 2007

This is worth reading. I think many of the ALS organizations will want to comment, and perhaps we want to coordinate something from the group as a whole. Begin forwarded message: > From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" > <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > Date: August 1, 2007 3:26:05 PM PDT > To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Final Report Introduction of New Generic > Top-Level Domains > > [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; gtld-council[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] > > Dear All, > > Please find the GNSO Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top- > Level Domains > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/PDFPDPDec05FRPartA30July07.pdf > published on page: > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ > > This report will be the reference at the new gTLD committee meeting > on Monday 6 August at 14:00 UTC. Dial-in details to be sent out soon. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > -- > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > >

1 0