- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the group might find more valuable. --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am Size: 3K To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Hi Wendy The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN budget line items as well. So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff. I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online. --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am Size: 3K To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am willing to attend the NY meeting to represent ISOC Québec. I suppose the ALAC has approved this planned meeting in NY. One question that comes to my mind is why approve this meeting after having refused to hold a similar meeting in Vancouver in February. This is not a matter of arguing for a meeting in Canada vs the US; I would just like to understand the decision. Regarding funding for a face to face meeting prior to San Juan and our discussions on the issue, my recollection is that opinions diverged. Some ALSes thought a face to face meeting was not necessary, others wanted one. As for our ALAC reps, they thought a meeting was not necessary and consequently refused to fund the Vancouver meeting. As for the availability of travels funds, my understanding is that holding the preparatory meeting in NY does not preclude ICANN funding our presence in San Juan, _________________________________________ 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: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: 10 avril 2007 05:28 > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting > > Although an invitation has been sent, the choice whether to --- message truncated ---

7 7

Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 14, 2007

April 14, 2007

Dear North American ALS colleagues: Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on enforceability of the MoUs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> Cc: Sue Jonklaas <sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> Nick, You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the "the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large Structures." The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. They are intended only to document the structure and processes of these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties to these agreements. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best regards, Dan Halloran -- -- 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] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by Wendy Seltzer April 14, 2007

April 14, 2007

Naturally, I disagree. RALOs should want a way to hold ICANN accountable, since ICANN seems to be steadily shirking that responsibility to the public elsewhere. Of course ICANN's legal counsel would not attempt to offer legal advice to the RALOs, whose interests might be adverse to his client. The statement that "It would probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties to these agreements." can only be a suggestion to the RALOs. With litigation often the only thing ICANN listens to, my recommendation (also not legal advice) is that it would be foolish for the RALO not to press for such accountability. At the very least, we should make ICANN explain why it fears giving the public the ability to hold it to its contractual commitments. --Wendy At 02:42 PM 4/14/2007, At-Large Staff wrote: >Dear North American ALS colleagues: > >Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs >with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on >enforceability of the MoUs. > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> >Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 >Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs >To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: Sue Jonklaas <sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> > > >Nick, > >You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with >its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws >Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ >bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the >"the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO >regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of >openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, >and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as >criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large Structures." > >The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- >they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. >They are intended only to document the structure and processes of >these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would >probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure >these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to >potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties >to these agreements. > >I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be >of any further assistance. > >Best regards, >Dan Halloran > > >-- >-- >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 -- 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/

1 0

Fwd: ICANN - Nominating Committee
by Bret Fausett April 14, 2007

April 14, 2007

FYI. Anyone involved with NARALO formation also might be interested in serving ICANN more directly by applying for one of the positions to be filled by ICANN's Nominating Committee. A message from the Nominating Committee's Co-Chair, Adam Peake, follows. Links below. Begin forwarded message: > From: Bret Fausett <bret(a)fausett.com> > Date: April 14, 2007 10:53:05 AM PDT > To: Bret Fausett <bret(a)fausett.com> > Subject: FW: ICANN - Nominating Committee > > Dear Linked In Friends, > > Adam Peake, the Co-Chair of ICANN's Nominating Committee, is > seeking confidential statements of interest from persons interested > in serving ICANN is various capacities over the coming years. This > is a worthwhile activity, if you have the time and interest. More > details are in Adam's message below. > > -- Bret > > > On April 13, 2007, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > ------------------------------------------ > > Many of you know me from ICANN, many of you already volunteer time > to ICANN - please excuse any redundancy with this request. And the > "spam'ish" nature of sending to you all. Thanks. Adam. > > Company: ICANN > Job Title: ICANN - volunteer leadership positions > Description: ICANN's NomCom is recruiting candidates. We are well > into the recruitment period, deadline is May 1st (2007). > > Can you suggest people to approach as candidates this year? Could > you forward this note to your network? > > Leadership positions the NomCom's to fill this year: > > * 3 seats on the ICANN Board of Directors > * 2 members to Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO) > * 3 members of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (citizens > from Africa, Latin America and Caribbean and Asia/Australia/Pacific > regions) > * 1 Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) member > > Information about the application process (there is an application > form we call a statement of interest to complete) is online <http:// > nomcom.icann.org/formal-call-2007.html>. Details of the positions > are available here <http://nomcom.icann.org/positions-2007.html>. > > ICANN's work is essential to the Internet and the general evolution > of ICTs. All these volunteer positions are hard work and take a > considerable commitment of time. Volunteers make an important > contribution to the Net and our community. > > Adam > LinkedIn Jobs > • Forward this job > • Reply to the job poster > This email was sent to you by Bret Fausett (bret(a)fausett.com) > through LinkedIn because Bret Fausett thought you might be > interested in this job opening or know people who would be > interested in applying. > > If you wish to change how you receive future job notifications, > please click here. > > If you have any questions, please contact > customer_service(a)linkedin.com. > > © 2007, LinkedIn Corporation >

1 0

GNSO Council Call MP3
by Bret Fausett April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

This is a great way to keep up with what is happening in the GNSO. -- Bret Begin forwarded message: > From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" > <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > Date: April 12, 2007 8:11:36 AM PDT > To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 April 12 2007 > > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] > [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] > > Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council > teleconference, held on April 12, 2007 at: > > http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070412.mp3 > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#apr > > Happy listening! > -- > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Getting Ignored: A Case-Study Tutorial
by Danny Younger April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Let's assume that you are a user that discovers a problem that warrants ICANN's attention. What can you do to deal with the issue? A Mr. Jeff Johnson spotted a problem and wrote directly to the ICANN Public Participation Forum: "http://forum.icann.org/lists/registrar has been removed. http://forum.icann.org/lists/registry has been removed. I know for a fact that a large history of Registerfly complaints was held there, (whether that was appropriate or not is another matter ) and now that history of evidence is missing in plain sight." This revelation was a "big deal" inasmuch as the public forum comments were removed at a time after the commencement of the class action lawsuit against ICANN. Some might view this as electronic shredding of evidence that has a direct bearing on the degree of negligence for which ICANN may be culpable. Did anyone on ICANN's staff monitoring the public comments take any action? No. I raised the issue with ICANN's Manager of Public Participation (as did Karl Auerbach). Result: no action taken. I raised the issue by writing directly to Vint Cerf. After consulting with his legal staff Vint writes that "we have no evidence of any such action or removal." (and this is in spite of the fact that the forum is still inaccessible and while records still reside in the Google cache). The issue was raised once more with the ICANN Ombudsman at the ALAC third session in Lisbon who looked into the matter. Frank Fowlie wrote: 07-131 Dear Mr. Younger, Thank you for raising the issue of the missing links to the registry - registrar comment pages during my visit with the ALAC at the Lisbon ICANN Meeting. I have contacted our webmaster, and I am informed that this was due to links not coming "live" during the transition from the precedent web page to the new one which was inaugurated at the Lisbon meeting. I believe that the matter has been, or soon will be, attended to by the ICANN staff. Thank you for passing this comment to me for investigation. Best regards, Frank Fowlie Twelve days after Frank's investigation and the links are still inoperative. I find it difficult to believe that ICANN's webmaster is so consumed with projects that he can't attend to this matter. Meanwhile, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against ICANN, eNom and RegisterFly, is denied the opportunity to properly build a case as a chain of evidence is being withheld. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

1 0

Compiled MoUs and Operating Principles
by ICANN At Large Staff April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Dear All: Attached are the compiled Operating Principles and MoUs of all the other regions, to assist you in looking at your own efforts on similar documents.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Roberto Gaetano wrote: > I am seriously puzzled by this. > I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with > ICANN about a meeting. Perhaps, if that had been the process from the start. In this case, however, that procedure was chosen only after the previous one, in which regional reps were looked to for advice about regional activites, failed to produce the results ICANN wanted. It smacks of post-hoc routing around critics. > If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process > (which is proceeding in all other regions). > Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the > only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the > NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter" > campaign.... I did not unilaterally decide a face-to-face meeting wasn't warranted, but listened to discussion among the region's accredited ALSs. Many of them expressed the view that since the RALO would have to do its work online, it should conduct its formation activities online as a test of their workability. I have heard nothing in subsequent discussions to convince me that the consensus has shifted. Squatting or astroturf (fake grassroots, engineered by ICANN itself) seems to be the choice of the moment. --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/

7 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] [NA-ALS] Invitation to NARALO face to face meeting
by Ted Ernst April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

> Correction: I'm in favor of the meeting wherever it's held, as long as > it's before San Juan. > I'm Ted Ernst, representing Emerging Futures Network. We have an application in to be an ALS. I'm also in favor of meeting face to face before San Juan. peace, ted -- Go Solar. More affordable than you could ever imagine! http://jointhesolution.com/tedernst Humanize the Earth! http://tedernst.com http://www.openspaceworld.org skype: TedErnst

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

Yes, that's why I suggest RALO-formation meetings be concurrent with ICANN meetings. Nice to have our powerlessness spelled out a bit further, though. --Wendy -----Original Message----- From: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:37 pm Size: 3K To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> cc: "'Luc Faubert'" <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Hello Wendy I ran this again past the ICANN VP in charge of the AtLArge budget. In theory and in practicality, ICANN has indicated that funds have been allocated specifically to RALO formation work. This isn't a NA budget, or an EU, LAC, AF or AP budget. A possible scenario is that if the NA region doesn't want to have this meeting, or form a RALO, the funds budgeted for this year for RALO formation may be used for attendees to the LAC GA in San Juan, or more AP ALS reps to the November ICANN meeting for the AP official MoU signing, and not necessarily on other ALAC items we might want that are not RALO-connected. Remember that ALAC has no discretionary funds - it's ICANN's At Large Director and VP that have control of the AtLarge budget. We can and do suggest activities that we would like funded, but ICANN Staff determines exactly how those funds are expended. We are more than halfway though the current fiscal year already. So funding is NOT a valid reason for objection, according to the people who hold the purse strings. Jacqueline Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>: > While that may be true in thepry, the practical reality is that > ICANN allocates finite funds to at-large activities. The more we > spend in one place, the less we have available for other things the > group might find more valuable. > > --Wendy > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> > Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting > Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 am > Size: 3K > To: "'Wendy Seltzer'" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, "'Luc Faubert'" > <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca>, <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Hi Wendy > The meeting in NY will not affect funding for San Juan. Funding has been > allocated to bring ALSes from the region to the ICANN meeting in the region. > Funding was also allocated for at least one f2f in advance of the ICANN > meeting at which the RALO was to be signed, for each region. Funding for > these meetings is not only from the AtLarge budget at ICANN, but other ICANN > budget line items as well. > > So - to be clear, funding is NOT a valid reason to say no to the meeting. > > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:35 AM > To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting > > Neither the full ALAC nor its North American members have approved this > meeting. It was sprung on us all by staff. > > I am arguing against this one for the same reasons I argued against > Vancouver: the group will ultimately have to work online and should use its > limited budget to attend as many full-ICANN meetings as possible. We can > draft documents as we have been, on the wiki and lists, but we can't talk to > Board and other Constituency members over drinks and in hallways online. > > --Wendy > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> > Subj: RE: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting > Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 am > Size: 3K > To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > If we are to stick to our initial plan of signing the NARALO-ICANN MOU in > San Juan in June, it is imperative that we agree on our MOU and Operating > principles before then. In this light, I think that -- as I argued when we > were discussing the possibility of meeting in Vancouver last February -- a > face to face meeting could be helpful to advance our discussions and I am --- message truncated ---

2 1