- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Action Items
by Wendy Seltzer April 24, 2007

April 24, 2007

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> I'm generally OK with the MOU, but share Luc's questions. > 1. Are we really going to get away with the MOU's parag. 6.4? We won't know if we don't try. > 2. Why do we need parag. 6.5? > I agree that 6.5 is unnecessary. My group is involved as an ALS to represent the POV of its membership, and cannot pretend to do more than that. While our goal is public progress, we do that through the advancement of a specific form of advocacy and don't claim to represent all viewpoints. ws: That's precisely the point of including it. Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement. --Wendy

15 114

Individual user candidate
by Jean Armour Polly April 24, 2007

April 24, 2007

I would like to submit my name as a candidate as a voting delegate representing individual unaffiliated users within the NARALO. I meet the qualifications listed here: 17. The 2 members from among the unaffiliated individuals who serve as representatives to the NARALO General Assembly must meet the following criteria: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS, * not be the Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat, * not be employed by or have direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar. -- Jean Armour Polly Jamesville, NY 13078 US

1 0

In preparation for this week's vote
by Luc Faubert April 23, 2007

April 23, 2007

As you may recall, our schedule calls for a vote this week to adopt our Operating Principles. I propose that the vote be reserved for voting delegates duly registered at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . The quorum would thus be established with regards to this list, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>

1 0

People Who is on board
by Luc Faubert April 22, 2007

April 22, 2007

Sylvia Caras from People Who says she has subscribed to our lists. Her subscription is pending approval I think. Welcome to Sylvia, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvia Caras [mailto:sylvia.caras@gmail.com] > Sent: 22 avril 2007 13:46 > To: Luc Faubert > Subject: Re: Participation in ICANN At-Large > > Thanks for inviting me. I've subscribed. > > Sylvia, Santa Cruz, CA, USA >

3 2

Individual user
by Jean Armour Polly April 22, 2007

April 22, 2007

Hi, I just edited the wiki contact page to include myself as an individual user-- I hope that was what I was supposed to do. I am looking for an opportunity for the unaffiliated but interested to have a vote as Free Range NARALO members. Possibly each ALS gets a vote and so does Free Range (FR)? Just a thought. If enough interested people in FR converge perhaps they start their own ALS accreditation process and if accredited, they get their own vote? Meanwhile those who want to remain FR do so. JP -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/ Ex-ALAC NA

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 21, 2007

April 21, 2007

Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise. The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses. On 17/04/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > The other thing is that the no orgs-of-orgs language is in the ICANN > bylaws. I entirely agree that it is arbitrary, and there are good reasons > that they might want to change it. The bylaws are not written in stone, > and we (the ALAC) have gotten the board to change language that didn't > work in the past. But rather than doing that, does anyone really think > that it is a good idea simply to ignore bylaws that we don't like? -- -- 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

14 34

Selection defaults to chair (OP para 13)??
by Wendy Seltzer April 20, 2007

April 20, 2007

13. In the event that the Chair determines that rough consensus does not exist for the selection of one or more candidates for ALAC seats, the Chair shall have final say in the selection of the NARALO's ALAC member(s). doesn't sound right to me. Why doesn't the chair call a vote? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

5 5

RSVP deadline irrelevant/changed?
by Wendy Seltzer April 20, 2007

April 20, 2007

Given the amount of on-list discussion regarding whether to have a face-to-face meeting and if so, where and when to have such a meeting, I'd like to suggest to staff that the "April 15" deadline for indicating travel needs -- in an invitation sent April 10 -- is not plausible. Can you please assure the NA list that if there is to be a meeting someplace, failure to respond by the 15th does not waive ICANN travel funding? Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

9 19

Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by John L April 20, 2007

April 20, 2007

> In what you have written below John, you have used the term "individual > user" at least three times in a more or less technical way. I assume then > that you have a fairly rigorous i.e. non-ambiguous definition for > "individual user". Nothing exotic, "individual user" means, well, an individual user. People who use the net for their own purposes, as opposed to people who use it within a business or organizational context. There is a difference of opinion within the ALAC whether that means people who register domains for their own use, or all people who use the net including the large majority who have never registered a domain and never will. Personally, I mean the latter group, since there are serious issues that affect them and aren't addressed elsewhere like domain squatting. The whole issue of .XXX and similar domains is also an issue not well addressed elsewhere. The porn industry has decidedly mixed enthusiasm for it, and it's supposed to provide a benefit for individuals who either want more access or less access to porn for themselves and their families. There's also considerable overlap between individual use and other kinds, e.g., if you send email to your spouse from work asking what groceries to pick up on the way home, that seems to me individual use even though you might be using your work access to do it. R's, John

4 5

TIME SENSITIVE NARALO telcon
by At Large Staff April 20, 2007

April 20, 2007

Dear NA ALSes and Candidate ALSes, Thank you to those of you that have got back to me regarding the proposed telcon for this/next week. Unfortunately I have only had 4 responses all but one of which are for 7am PDT on Monday 23rd April. I have spoken with Nick Ashton-Hart and he has suggested that I book the telcon for then unless the majority of you reply to me within the next 24 hours saying that you cannot make that time. Therefore unless I hear otherwise, by this time tomorrow, I will arrange for the telcon to take place on Monday morning at 7am PDT. Regards Susie ICANN At-Large Staff

4 3