- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Please kill the NA-ALS list
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

FYI, a list is not needed for voting. We have a quite sophisticated voting tool which is paid for already; it is what ALAC and all the other regions use. The only thing bad I've heard about it is that Wendy doesn't like it - it does work very well however. On 21/05/07, Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> wrote: > > This is my understanding too. It's perhaps not the most efficient way of > recording votes, but let's keep the "official" voting list until we come up > with a better solution. > > Bret > > > > As to the list, as previously stated, my understanding is that this > > will remain in use for voting delegates - if that's not true, we can > > get rid of it. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada'sALS application
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

Somehow this got caught in the spam filter the first time round. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst(a)vcn.bc.ca> Date: 22-May-2007 07:13 Subject: {Spam?} RE: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada'sALS application To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca>, 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> I must say that I really do find this notion of "individual Internet users" as somehow being the basic level of Internet access/use granularity really quite culture (geography/ideology) bound... As I said in an earlier extended exchange on this, for most of the world the basic level of Internet access/use is not "the individual" user but rather some form of hybrid collaborative/collective use/user whether through family use, telecenter use, even multiple semi-anonymous use in cybercafes. That this notion was written into the ICANN bylaws simply shows how narrow was the group that was originally involved in the processes through which those mechanisms were established. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to launch a personal crusade around this issue but perhaps we could at least recognize that those notions make only marginal sense in practice and that even in the case of Canada and the TC application, the reality of Internet use will need to expand to include the group and the collective and that as I understand it is all that TC is saying. MG -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: May 21, 2007 7:02 AM To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada'sALS application Luc, The ICANN bylaws stipulate: The criteria and standards for the certification of At-Large Structures shall be established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region of the RALO will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure within the RALO Telecommunities Canada describes itself as a sort of "holding company" comprised of multiple organizational members whose activities predominate in the operation of TC; individual Internet users (remember them?) are not the predominant factors in TC's operation (per their own admission). Alan was correct in rejecting their application. The better question is why did others approve the application that was deficient on its face? --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> wrote: > Hi Alan, > > May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities > Canada's ALS application? > > Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) > foremost organizations > doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has > been working > tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause > of Internet use and > penetration in Canada. > > Regards, > > > _________________________________________ > Luc Faubert > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du > changement / > IT governance and change management consulting > +1 514 236 5129 > www.LucFaubert.com > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > www.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.uqbm.qc.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org > --- > 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 > ________________________________________________________________________ ____________Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- 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 -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

concern regarding a provision of the draft OP
by Michael Maranda May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

Currently: 17. The 2 members from among the unaffiliated individuals who serve as representatives to the NARALO General Assembly must meet the following criter - not be a member of a certified ALS, This provision troubles me. I could see myself as a general member of an accredited ALS, where that ALS has a somewhat specific focus or interest, and where I do not feel it represents my full range of interests as an individual. If I am not of the leadership of that organization, and I am dedicated to working within the parameters we have set, it would be a mistake to exclude persons on such basis. As I review the accredited entities I see room for many of us to be involved in each other's organizations. For example, I endorse the work of CAUCE and would consider joining them as a member. My interest there may be general enough that I dont take an active role in the organization beyond supporting their direct mission and educating others on the topic. If I had a range of other views and concerns I wished to raise on ICANN policy, I would prefer the freedom to stand before you as an individual when occasion arises. I am not absolute in my opposition to this provision, I do understand it's intention, but I would appreciate discussion or reconsideration of this point. Regards, Michael Maranda

3 2

Fwd: [icann-staff] Tralliance - .TRAVEL Registry Sponsor
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Craig.Schwartz <Craig.Schwartz(a)icann.org> Date: 21-May-2007 17:32 Subject: [icann-staff] Tralliance - .TRAVEL Registry Sponsor To: icann-staff(a)icann.org All: There have been a number of postings recently to the ALAC mailing list, as well as published news articles, about the alleged imminent failure of the .TRAVEL registry. I am in contact with the sponsor about their plan and intention to continue operations, and would appreciate it if you directed inquiries about this to me. I will of course be connecting with Paul Levins and John Jeffrey about the approach to handling communications on this matter. Thanks, Craig ___________________ Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Direct +1 310 301 5832 Mobile +1 310 447 4913 www.icann.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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] Call for Statements of Interest | NA RALO Seats on ALAC
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

Just two clarifications to the below: Firstly, there is a further qualification for ALAC members: that the members selected must be nationals, or residents, of different countries in the region. Of course, many candidates from a single country would be welcomed - but only one from each could actually be seated. This comes from the ICANN Bylaws if you are wondering. Secondly, the election and seating of ALAC representatives is dependent not upon the adoption of Operating Principles, but on the agreement of the contents of the MoU with ICANN. Whilst I'm sure from the discussions here that the region does want to have Operating Principles, this is not strictly speaking necessary to elect ALAC representatives. [ On 18/05/07, Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> wrote: > CALL FOR STATEMENTS OF INTEREST | NORTH AMERICAN R.A.L.O. IN FORMATION | > 18 MAY 2007 > > Consistent with Paragraph 10 of the Draft Operating Principles ("OP") > for the North American RALO in Formation, I am pleased to open the Call > for Statements of Interest for persons interested in serving on ICANN's > At Large Advisory Committee. Consistent with Paragraph 9 of the OP, the > only requirement for service is that a candidate live in the North > American region. > > This initial call for Statements of Interest is to elect two (2) members > of the ALAC. One person will serve a two year term and the other will > serve a one year term. The ALAC members will be elected by the voting > members of the NARALO, only if and after its members ratify the > Operating Principles now out for a vote. Each year hereafter, the NARALO > will elect one (1) person. > > This Call for Statements of Interest will remain open from today, > Friday, 18 May 2007 through and including Friday, 22 June 2007 (11:59 pm > HST). > > If you are interested in applying, please send an email to Nick > Ashton-Hart (nick.ashton-hart (at) icann.org) and to me (bfausett (at) > internet.law.pro) with the following information: > > -- 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 -- > > PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL RESPONSES WILL BE PUBLIC AND WILL BE POSTED FOR > REVIEW ON THE ALAC WEB SITE AND THE NA-RALO MAILING LISTS AS APPROPRIATE. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Bret Fausett > Interim Chair, North American RALO General Assembly > Member, WEB405, Accredited ALS > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

6 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

RJ, the other thing I would suggest is establishing rules of procedure. These are generally separate from constitution-type documents. I have prepared, with the LAC secretariat, draft Rules of Procedure for At-Large; these are available in several languages at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. On 21/05/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > > > In the OPs, you should have those processes documented. Usually you have a > quorum requirement for meetings and teleconferences. Decisions made there > by consensus or by a particular voting process should be binding. Things > that require a vote by the membership – approval of the MoU, Ops, > representatives etc should be voted on by the reps to the RALO Assembly (2 > per ALS and 2 for unaffiliated users in the NARALO according to the OPs) > > But you need to approve the Operating principles first in order to operate > by them! > > In the interim, from the messages I've seen on the list, you guys have > agreed processes to vote on the operating principles (or had – now there's > discussion about counting the votes) and an interim Chair to manage the > process. > > Maybe Bret, Nick or Luc can send a message to the whole list to remind > everyone of the process and timeline agreed to for the voting on the OP and > MoU and the election of the Reps etc. and you can move ahead to finish the > admin bits and get onto the substance of AtLarge representation. > > > > Jacqueline > > > > > > > From: RJGlass | America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:44 PM > To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > Cc: Thompson, Darlene; Danny Younger; Luc Faubert; Wendy Seltzer; NA > Discuss > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU > > > > > how do we decide what we vote on and what we just discuss as a quorum and > accept? > > Randy Glass > A@L > > > On 5/21/07, Jacqueline A. Morris < jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone > > If everyone has to agree to everything then nothing would get done. There > are processes to deal with disagreements, and if there is no consensus, then > you vote. Veto power would basically prevent NA region from moving forward > on the many vital and urgent policy issues in which the individual users > you represent are interested. > > If you revisit every decision taken in a meeting that someone doesn't agree > with (especially if they didn't attend the meeting) that seems to me to be > trying to institute a veto by delay. You have processes. If the decisions > are taken in accordance with the process, then they should not be revisited > unless new information, new members or a sea-change in the thinking of the > group occurs. In that case, you should have processes to allow for > revisiting these decisions (usually 2/3 majority in a vote) > > Just my $0.02 > > BTW – Bret, Mr. Interim Chair – how are you going on the MoU and OP > adoption? I saw a couple emails that indicated confusion about the vote > counting – has that been sorted? > > > > Jacqueline > > > > > > From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:53 AM > To: Danny Younger; Luc Faubert; Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss > > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU > > > > > > > Danny, > > > > > > It is truly a shame, then, that neither you nor Wendy were on that last > conference call. You could have voiced your opinions therein. As it was, > as Luc states, everybody on the call voted to remove those paragraphs so its > rather a null issue now - as I see it. > > > > > > Darlene > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf > of Danny Younger > Sent: Sat 5/19/2007 8:44 AM > To: Luc Faubert; Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU > > > I support Wendy's position. Until such time as > At-Large directors are seated on the ICANN Board (an > act that would honor the spirit of the White Paper > upon which ICANN was built), I don't intend to give an > inch on this point. > > Had at-Large Directors been on the Board, do any of > you think that we would have gone the last five years > without any registrant data escrow services?!! Do you > think that with At-Large Directors on the Board that > registrants would still be paying up to $260 to redeem > a domaine name from the Redemption Grace Period? > > I'm not interested in "playing nice". We need to have > our community protected, and if legal channels are all > that remain, then I will not support any course of > action that serves to eliminate third-party > beneficiary rights. > > > --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> wrote: > > > Hello Wendy, > > > > Yes, I noticed you put these paragraphs back after I > > deleted them > > yesterday. > > > > I deleted the paragraphs because of the unanimous > > agreement of the > > people on our last conference call to do so, as > > documented in the > > minutes of the call I sent to the list on 04.29. > > > > I appreciate your concerns. However, the clauses do > > not represent the > > spirit of mutuality vehiculated in the MOU and the > > probality that ICANN > > will agree to an MOU carrying these clauses is zero. > > > > So I would appreciate that you respect the will of > > the majority and not > > put them back after I delete them again. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > Luc Faubert > > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du > > changement / > > IT governance and change management consulting > > +1 514 236 5129 > > www.LucFaubert.com > > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > > www.isoc.qc.ca > > www.ccig.ca > > www.uqbm.qc.ca > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] > > On Behalf > > > Of Wendy Seltzer > > > Sent: 19 mai 2007 07:44 > > > To: NA Discuss > > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU > > > > > > I replaced what I thought were important terms in > > the draft > > > MoU. Let me explain further why I think they're > > important. > > > > > > > 6.4 Enforcement. In recognition of the > > considerable time > > > and effort expended by the signing organizations, > > ICANN > > > agrees that its obligations are legally > > enforceable in the > > > courts [or arbitral forums] of [jurisdiction]. In > > the event > > > of breach, ICANN shall be liable for the relying > > parties' > > > costs and fees. > > > > > > I think we want this to be more than just pretty > > words on > > > paper (or screen), but a set of enforceable > > obligations to > > > which groups can hold ICANN. This language > > specifies the > > > recourse in case of breach. > > > > > > > 6.5 Third-party beneficiaries. This agreement is > > made for > > > the benefit of the general public. Individual > > Internet users > > > are its intended beneficiaries, and its terms are > > expressly > > > enforceable by any member of the public. > > > > > > The At-Large is supposed to be the mechanism by > > which the > > > public has input to and participation in ICANN, > > say the > > > Bylaws. If we're creating a RALO, we should be > > trying to > > > give the public as many channels as the structure > > allows -- > > > including, where necessary, the channel of legal > > enforcement. > > > Third-party beneficiary clauses are the standard > > way to > > > express that public-benefit aspect. > > > > > > Unfortunately, past experience with ICANN suggests > > that legal > > > action is the most effective means to get ICANN's > > attention > > > and action. For recent examples, ICANN did not > > respond to > > > the RegisterFly crisis until a class action > > lawsuit was > > > filed. ICANN renewed Verisign's contract, > > allowing price > > > increases that harm the end-user, after Verisign > > filed suit. > > > > > > I'm not suggesting that we sue ICANN, but leaving > > that option > > > available to us or to others strengthens our > > bargaining > > > position far short of litigation. > > > > > > These legal "hooks" could provide much greater > > opportunity > > > for real progress by this RALO and the public. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --Wendy > > > > > > -- > > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > > > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, > > Berkman > > > Center for Internet & Society > > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl > > arge-lists.icann.org > > > --- > > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 > 7:54 AM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 > 7:54 AM > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 > 7:54 AM > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 > 7:54 AM > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Euralo Elections -- the reaction is in...
by Danny Younger May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

http://log.does-not-exist.org/archives/2007/05/21/2117_icann_atlarge_time_t… http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/internet/icann/euralo-selects-first-board-and… ____________________________________________________________________________________Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

2 1

Legal hooks in the MOU
by Wendy Seltzer May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

I replaced what I thought were important terms in the draft MoU. Let me explain further why I think they're important. > 6.4 Enforcement. In recognition of the considerable time and effort expended by the signing organizations, ICANN agrees that its obligations are legally enforceable in the courts [or arbitral forums] of [jurisdiction]. In the event of breach, ICANN shall be liable for the relying parties' costs and fees. I think we want this to be more than just pretty words on paper (or screen), but a set of enforceable obligations to which groups can hold ICANN. This language specifies the recourse in case of breach. > 6.5 Third-party beneficiaries. This agreement is made for the benefit of the general public. Individual Internet users are its intended beneficiaries, and its terms are expressly enforceable by any member of the public. The At-Large is supposed to be the mechanism by which the public has input to and participation in ICANN, say the Bylaws. If we're creating a RALO, we should be trying to give the public as many channels as the structure allows -- including, where necessary, the channel of legal enforcement. Third-party beneficiary clauses are the standard way to express that public-benefit aspect. Unfortunately, past experience with ICANN suggests that legal action is the most effective means to get ICANN's attention and action. For recent examples, ICANN did not respond to the RegisterFly crisis until a class action lawsuit was filed. ICANN renewed Verisign's contract, allowing price increases that harm the end-user, after Verisign filed suit. I'm not suggesting that we sue ICANN, but leaving that option available to us or to others strengthens our bargaining position far short of litigation. These legal "hooks" could provide much greater opportunity for real progress by this RALO and the public. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

6 7

voting on the documents
by Michael Maranda May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

Greetings to all, AFCN is very pleased to serves as an ALS in North America. We are carefully reviewing the proposed documents. We have designated one (myself) of our two representatives and will shortly identify the second. As to the documents in question, I assume we vote separately for each document. At this time I offer my vote in the affirmative for the draft "Code of Conduct" Regards, Michael > 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

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Please kill the NA-ALS list
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

Wendy: You are a moderator, that's why you're getting those messages. I'm happy to remove you as a moderator if you wish. As to the list, as previously stated, my understanding is that this will remain in use for voting delegates - if that's not true, we can get rid of it. On 21/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > I'm now getting bounce messages as people attempt duplicate postings in > response to messages sent there. We all agreed we had no need for the > NA-ALS list. > > Thanks. > --Wendy > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 5