- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Why the NARALO should stop wasting time arguing about .US
by Michael Maranda July 18, 2007

July 18, 2007

No, it isnt NARALO's business as a whole, but I welcome opportunity to learn from Canadian experience and policy and to that extent it is a great opportunity for NARALO to work together for mutual benefit. I am thankful for Canadian input on this. On 7/18/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > > As far as I can tell we are fairly clear on purpose -- we exist to > > advocate the interests and values of the Internet-using public within > > ICANN, and to educate the public in ICANN activities and their effect on > > > open and useful use of the Internet. Everything we do -- outreach, > > summits, position papers, advocacy -- is a tactic borne from this > purpose. > > Right. ICANN manages gTLDs. It does not manage ccTLDs such as .CA and > .US. The management of .US is, frankly, none of the ALAC's or NARALO's > business. > > I suspect that the Canadian ALS would not appreciate us southern devils > telling CIRA how to run the .CA domain. Yet here are a bunch of Canadian > ALS purporting to advise the US Department of Commerce on managing the .US > domain. > > Personally, I happen to think that since the vast majority of .US domains > are clearly registered for commercial purposes, there is an obvious > pro-consumer benefit to registrant transparency, but if I want to lobby > the US DOC, I will do so as a US citizen, not as part of an irrelevant > advisory committee to an irrelevant organization. Were I to want to lobby > > CIRA about their anti-consumer data hiding for commercial .CA domains, I > would talk to Canadian CIRA members I know to see if I could persuade them > to make that argument. > > So can we stop now? > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org

2 2

Changes to OP - Chair & Secretariat
by Thompson, Darlene July 18, 2007

July 18, 2007

Hi all, Since we are changing the OP to address the language issue and since we have an election coming up for Chair and Secretariat, I would like to move that we change: Paragraph 5 (one sentence) from: "Each year the General Assembly shall elect a Chair and a Secretariat." To: "Each year the General Assembly shall elect a Chair or co-Chairs and a Secretariat or co-Secretariats" Paragraph 7 (one sentence) from: "The role of the Secretariat could be exercised by a person or an organization, as long as they fulfill the language requirements." To: "The role of the Secretariat could be exercised by a person or persons or an organization or organizations, as long as they fulfill the language requirements." Perhaps this, too, can be adopted by acclamation on receipt of a seconder to the motion? Bret - thoughts? Finally, I would like to note that I, too, am against jigging with the OP on a continuous basis. Perhaps we need to set a specific time each year to address such issues, like 2 months before the election of the Chair and Secretariat or just after then have been elected or some such. D 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

3 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Puerto Rico's ccTLD re-delegation
by David Conrad July 17, 2007

July 17, 2007

Eduardo, Presumably the questions you ask are rhetorical. As documented in RFC 1591, IANA generally does not intrude in internal ccTLD management matters. If you have any questions regarding the IANA redelegation process or requirements, feel free to contact Kim Davies, the IANA Names Liaison, or myself at your convenience. Regards, -drc On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Eduardo Diaz, PE wrote: > The move to a not-for-profit by Dr. Moreno was most probably done > because > the Government of Puerto Rico put out an investigative report in 2006 > recommending this action; however, they (the government) when > further and > requested that the not-for-profit should be managed by a > multidisciplinary > board of directors. So far the only board is Dr. Moreno, who offers > second > level ccTLD domains for a $1000 a piece. > > We, the Internet Society of Puerto Rico, are working with Government > officials to finalize a statement to request an official re- > delegation. So > far what we have seen is a discriminatory, non-inclusive ccTLD > manager. Why > do think we do not have isoc.pr as our main domain name? Will you > pay $1000 > for it? > > Eduardo Díaz > ISOC-PR > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:06 PM > To: ediaz(a)dconsultinggroup.com > Cc: ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org; Ada Garcia; Alba Leal Martin - El > Nuevo Dia; > 'Ana T. Ramos'; 'Ana T. Ramos'; 'Archer Lebron'; Ernesto Gonzalez; > 'Ernesto > R. Cruz'; 'Eugenio Torres'; Luis Rodriguez Baez - Estudios Tecnicos; > Margarita Lloveras; 'Martin Castillo'; 'Naji Khoury'; Ricardo Rivera; > 'Stefan Antonmattei'; 'Willie Miranda Marin' > Subject: Re: Puerto Rico's ccTLD re-delegation > > Dear Eduardo Diaz, > > Apologies for the slow response. > > The .PR domain was updated with a new sponsoring organisation to > reflect a structural reorganisation of the entity that operated the > domain. Since the underlying organization performing registry > services for .PR did not change (it was Gauss Laboratories before and > after the change), this is not considered a full redelegation, and > therefore does not result in a public report with board approval. > > In essence, the entity Gauss Laboratory was, and still is, the > operator of the domain. Earlier the organisation was deemed to be > under the University of Puerto Rico, but it is now organised as a not- > for-profit organisation. > > Due diligence is performed on all root zone change requests received > by IANA. It is important to note this was done with the full consent > of the parties that operate the domain, as well as the University of > Puerto Rico. Further, this action does not in any way change the > rights of UPR, or any other party, to seek a redelegation of .PR if > they satisfy all the regular criteria for redelegation. > > I hope this clarifies the situation. > > Regards, > -drc > > On Jul 12, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Eduardo Diaz, PE wrote: > >> David: >> >> We noticed that the ccTLD for Puerto Rico (.pr) was re-delegated >> from the University of Puerto Rico to a new non-for-Profit >> Corporation on December 21, 2006. We could not find any public >> documents related to this re-delegation. >> >> Please advice. >> >> Eduardo Diaz >> President >> ISOC-Puerto Rico >> >> <image001.gif> >> >> >> ccNSO Secretariat: Please forward this message to Chris Disspain >> for we want his advise on this too. Others copied in the mail are >> members of our board. Thanks. > > > >

1 0

ccTLDs
by Gareth Shearman July 17, 2007

July 17, 2007

Problems with .us and now .pr as well? It seems we are lucky with what is generally considered to be a well run .ca I am encouraging anyone who has a registered .ca domain to go through their new process for individual memberships. That way we can individually have at least some say in CIRA. Gareth

2 1

Re-delegation of the Puerto Rico ccTLD - .pr
by Eduardo Diaz July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

All: I am looking for some advise/direction. We (the Internet Society of Puerto Rico) recently found out that the Puerto Rico ccTLD - .pr was re-delegated to a new non-for-profit organization on 21 December, 2006. I looked all over the IANA web site for any public documents regarding this re-delegation and could not found anything except the info in the Who Is database. I wrote an email to Mr. David Conrad and ccNSO secretariat but did not receive any feedback regarding this issue. Can anyone in the NARALO help us in directing us to the right information source? We are very eager to understand how this happened without going through the due diligence that characterized these re-delegations. Eduardo Díaz President ISOC-PR

3 9

.us TLD
by Danny Younger July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

On 3 July the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a Request for Quote (RFQ) pertaining to the administration of the .us TLD. The language of the RFQ conveys the sense that there is but a single stakeholder in the .us namespace, and that sole stakeholder is the U.S. government. The RFQ makes it clear that USG alone sets the policy for .us -- an example follows: "The Contractor shall implement a process for accrediting registrars to register names in the expanded usTLD. Such process shall include a contract with each accredited registrar prohibiting proxy and anonymous registration services." The situation is particularly troubling in view of the fact that the current administrator of the namespace saw the dissolution of the .US Policy Council over four years ago. In all that time, the .us TLD hasn't even enjoyed the pretense of community-based policy input. This heavy-handedness on the part of the U.S. government is part of the reason for the embarrassingly poor uptake of the .us TLD that languishes with just a little more than 1 million registrations (by comparison Nominet has just reported it's six millionth registration in .uk). The .us privacy policies are repressive, the kids.us namespace has a mere 20 active websites, thousands of locality-based delegated managers remain unknown to the current TLD manager, and community-based policy guidance has disappeared. This sad state of affairs requires an intervention from the American community that should be insisting on a formal public comment period concurrent with the RFQ. The RFQ may be read here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/vendors/usTLD_RFQ_070707.pdf I would recommend that each American on this list consider the values offered by CIRA's policy and privacy approach in .ca, and commit to writing to the U.S. DOC to advocate for a saner approach to the management of .us The DOC contact address follows: Kalika Boulware, Contract Specialist at kalika.m.boulware[at]noaa.gov. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

4 5

LA NARALO / Re: NARALO 9th July Teleconference Summary
by RJGlass | America＠Large July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

For clarification only...... What is the purpose of the LA meeting? Regardless if 2 meetings were planned in the same region back to back, I think it appropriate for NARALO to meet at that time, rather than wait - I'm guessing out of memory - 2 years before the next NA meeting. Randy Glass A@L On 7/10/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Darlene, the money isn't there - a new budget year started 1 July. We have > to live within the means we have available to us. > As I told you, we could find a way to have a regional meeting at some > point mid-way-ish between the San Juan meeting and the next NA meeting. We > can also have an outreach event which brings some of you to the LA meeting. > We could also have a telephonic meeting which allows those not at the LA > meeting to attend virtually with those that are there. And of course I will > once again be working to ensure that remote participation works for the > other At-large related meetings and more of the workshops. > On 10 Jul 2007, at 16:10, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > > Ahhhhhhhh… > > > So, if we saved ICANN the money by not having one (or more) face-to-face > meetings for formation and ours chose to save this money for outreach and > future planning, then why can this pot not be reallocated? Obviously the > money is there. Espcially since ICANN has no meeting set up for NA for next > fiscal. > > > D > > > 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:* Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org<nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:04 AM > *To:* Thompson, Darlene > *Cc:* NA Discuss > *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO 9th July Teleconference Summary > > > Darlene, I'm afraid there must be a misunderstanding here. > > > I never said that there was 'plenty of money' to have two meetings at > ICANN meetings for the same region back-to-back. I would never say that > because it is absolutely not the case. > > > Having a pre-meeting to form a RALO was something money was available for > because every other region had had one or more meetings in order to form > their RALOs. > > > These are two entirely different things. > > > There has not ever been money for a single region to have two GAs > back-to-back. > > > On 10 Jul 2007, at 13:42, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > > > > Thank you for posting that, Nick, > > > I was just thinking about the telephone conference last night (in those > wasted hours between 3 – 4:00 AM) and something hit me as not making a lot > of sense. Prior to the San Juan meeting, when we were discussing having a > pre-formation one-on-one meeting in Vancouver/Yonkers/Montreal, we were told > that there was plenty of money in the budget to do this and to still go to > San Juan. Now we are being told that there isn't money in the budget to > have gone to San Juan and then do further needed outreach in LA. WTF? What > happened to it? As we only have about a dozen ALSs in the entire region, I > would think that outreach would be as important at this time as formation. > It just really seems like now that we have formed, the plug is being pulled. > > > Or am I being paranoid? > > > D > > > Community Access Program Administrator > > Department of Education/N-CAP > > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > > Fax: (867) 979-8870 > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

1 0

New Access Codes for the NARALO Teleconference today
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

Dear NA colleagues: Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code. You should receive a new code in the next couple of hours - if you do not, and you wish to attend the teleconference today, simply send an email to staff(a)alac.icann.org and we'll send you the code by reply. Begin forwarded message: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of > Danny Younger > Sent: 07 July 2007 14:30 > To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: [ga] NARALO Teleconference > > The NARALO will be having a teleconference on Monday > -- details are here: > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.icann.org/ > 2007-July/001280.html > > If you don't remember what the NARALO is (they're the group being > paid to > attend ICANN meetings that pushed through their MOU with ICANN and > had it > ratified by the Board in San Juan without the benefit of a > publicized Public > Comment Period so that they could all enjoy a staged photo op), > then it > wouldn't hurt to see what the U.S. civil society representatives that > pretend to be the at-large are up to. > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______ > ________ > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. > http://travel.yahoo.com/

7 8

ALS Proposed structures appllication (ALAC)
by RJGlass | America＠Large July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

With regard to the current ALAC meeting, and the Proposed Guide to At-Large Structures Application evaluation, I have some concerns. 1) This document lacks any real substance or clarity in the area of what is desired of future ALSs. 2) There is no substantial improvement over the previous version. 3) There has not been substantial deliberation over the issues, rather issues are glossed over and accepted or changed as insignificantly as they have been proposed. 4) Too much time has been spent on procedural issues that could have been better focused on substance. I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected. -Randy Glass A@L

11 32

Open Call for Statements of Interest: Chair, Co-Chairs, Secretariat
by Bret Fausett July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

As discussed on our conference call on Monday, we are now opening a period for submission of statements of interest for a NA-RALO Chair, Co-Chairs, and Secretariat who will be elected in August, 2007 and continue to serve through the close of the ICANN annual meeting in 2008 (November, 2008). The key provisions of our Operating Principles ("OP") relating to these roles are found in Paragraphs 5-8, specifically: (a) "[t]he Chair shall act as moderator and facilitator of the work of the NARALO," (Paragraph 5); and, (b) "[t]he Secretariat will have administrative and informative functions. It will be responsible for maintaining a working communications system and for ensuring the information flux about the issues under discussion between the NARALO participants." (See link to Operating Principles in footer below.) Please note two eligibility issues. First, anyone serving as a Chair, Co-Chair, or on the Secretariat is ineligible to serve on the ALAC or the ICANN Nominating Committee "in any year in which they serve for NARALO." (Paragraph 5). Second, the Secretariat cannot simultaneously serve as a Chair or Co-Chair (Paragraph 8). Statements of Interest should be submitted to this list by Friday, August 3, 2007 at midnight in Hawaii. Statements of Interest should follow the form below, though feel free to add any additional information you think might be relevant. -- Bret Fausett (Interim Chair) -- START -- (a) Your name: first name, FAMILY NAME (in capital letters) (b) Your e-mail address. (c) Your telephone number(s) and/or Skype/Yahoo!/Mac or other VOIP or Audio Chat ID. (d) Your country of citizenship. If you hold multiple citizenships please state all. (e) Your city and country of residence and your preferred mailing address. (f) Education and professional background. Summarize your educational background, such as degrees achieved and the university(s) where you studied, and the three most recent places of employment and positions held. (g) Internet Involvement and Interest in ICANN. Help us understand the skills and experience you would bring to the ALAC and how you would help the ALAC achieve its mission. (h) Conflicts of Interest. Please refer to the ICANN Conflicts of Interest policy http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi- policy-04mar99.htm. This document is aimed at conflicts for ICANN Directors and Officers, but should provide guidance for all ICANN leadership positions. If you have had any relationship with an ICANN accredited registry or registrar (other than registering a domain name) or any organization that has been in dispute with ICANN, please describe that relationship here. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily disqualifying, since we anticipate that many experienced people may have such relationships. -- END --

8 13