Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, would you want to join a club that would have you as a member? I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance. Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power..." Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote? -----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have signed registry contracts with ICANN. Until new TLDs happen, we don't qualify. We are allowed to observe, but not participate. I kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore.
You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be a place for me *somewhere.* Luckily there is, but only one -- under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO. It's pretty much the "membership of last resort." It is in that capacity that I am participating. It's disheartening to be told that I should take my point of view elsewhere.
Antony
P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he is no longer with Demand Media. He's pretty much in the same boat I am. Waiting for Godot...
P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date.
However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/)
According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) (“Registries”) (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG."
According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf), Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food.
Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman.
NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS."
In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role.
However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are:
* Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups
I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.
As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open.
a.
On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users."
I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of?
Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency?
with kind regards, a.
On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial volunteer time into the details.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Beau, I want to be a formal part of ICANN, that's all. There's a simple reason, which we saw evidenced at a recent public comment session at ICANN in SF -- formally constituted groups have priority of place, their positions are considered formally by the Board, etc. Everywhere I go, it's the same story as I'm getting from you -- go elsewhere. I wasn't aware that one needed to show up at a NARALO meeting to "make a case" for unaffiliated membership. Indeed, I wasn't aware that physical participation was a requirement for any ALAC membership. Am I wrong? I've been on this list for some time now and I've seen groups admitted by a simple "ok with me" from a few existing members. I've never seen any unaffiliated members being vetted for their qualifications -- can you point to an example? Or is it simply that different views are not welcome? Antony On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, would you want to join a club that would have you as a member?
I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance.
Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power..."
Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote?
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have signed registry contracts with ICANN. Until new TLDs happen, we don't qualify. We are allowed to observe, but not participate. I kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore.
You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be a place for me *somewhere.* Luckily there is, but only one -- under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO. It's pretty much the "membership of last resort." It is in that capacity that I am participating. It's disheartening to be told that I should take my point of view elsewhere.
Antony
P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he is no longer with Demand Media. He's pretty much in the same boat I am. Waiting for Godot...
P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date.
However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/)
According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) (“Registries”) (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG."
According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf), Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food.
Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman.
NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS."
In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role.
However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are:
* Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups
I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.
As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open.
a.
On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users."
I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of?
Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency?
with kind regards, a.
On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about > any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial > volunteer time into the details.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Having helped draft the last revision to the rules on unaffiliated members, I can state that the only rules are: - 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 and you must submit a statement of interest certifying that you meet these rules. There is an additional rule that the formal representative of the unaffilitated members, who gets to vote on their behalf on the rare cases that we have votes, must must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar. The formal document can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?na_2007_1_1rev1_draft_naralo_operat.... Sadly, it is still marked as a draft even though adopted. And just as sad, I just found a typo in the section on unaffiliated members.... Alan At 29/03/2011 06:03 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Beau,
I want to be a formal part of ICANN, that's all. There's a simple reason, which we saw evidenced at a recent public comment session at ICANN in SF -- formally constituted groups have priority of place, their positions are considered formally by the Board, etc. Everywhere I go, it's the same story as I'm getting from you -- go elsewhere.
I wasn't aware that one needed to show up at a NARALO meeting to "make a case" for unaffiliated membership. Indeed, I wasn't aware that physical participation was a requirement for any ALAC membership. Am I wrong? I've been on this list for some time now and I've seen groups admitted by a simple "ok with me" from a few existing members. I've never seen any unaffiliated members being vetted for their qualifications -- can you point to an example? Or is it simply that different views are not welcome?
Antony
On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, would you want to join a club that would have you as a member?
I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance.
Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power..."
Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote?
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have signed registry contracts with ICANN. Until new TLDs happen, we don't qualify. We are allowed to observe, but not participate. I kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore.
You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be a place for me *somewhere.* Luckily there is, but only one -- under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO. It's pretty much the "membership of last resort." It is in that capacity that I am participating. It's disheartening to be told that I should take my point of view elsewhere.
Antony
P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he is no longer with Demand Media. He's pretty much in the same boat I am. Waiting for Godot...
P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date.
However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/)
According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) ("Registries") (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG."
According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf), Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food.
Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman.
NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS."
In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role.
However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are:
* Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups
I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.
As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open.
a.
On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users."
I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
-----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> > Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM > To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > > Hi, > > does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? > > Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? > > with kind regards, > a. > > On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >> volunteer time into the details. > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
My general statement of interest is found here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/soi-swg-10sep10-en.htm#van-couvering - I am subscribed to the NA-Discuss list - I am a permanent member of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN (the US of A) - I am not a member of a certified ALS Antony Van Couvering On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Having helped draft the last revision to the rules on unaffiliated members, I can state that the only rules are:
- 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
and you must submit a statement of interest certifying that you meet these rules. There is an additional rule that the formal representative of the unaffilitated members, who gets to vote on their behalf on the rare cases that we have votes, must must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar.
The formal document can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?na_2007_1_1rev1_draft_naralo_operat.... Sadly, it is still marked as a draft even though adopted. And just as sad, I just found a typo in the section on unaffiliated members....
Alan
At 29/03/2011 06:03 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Beau,
I want to be a formal part of ICANN, that's all. There's a simple reason, which we saw evidenced at a recent public comment session at ICANN in SF -- formally constituted groups have priority of place, their positions are considered formally by the Board, etc. Everywhere I go, it's the same story as I'm getting from you -- go elsewhere.
I wasn't aware that one needed to show up at a NARALO meeting to "make a case" for unaffiliated membership. Indeed, I wasn't aware that physical participation was a requirement for any ALAC membership. Am I wrong? I've been on this list for some time now and I've seen groups admitted by a simple "ok with me" from a few existing members. I've never seen any unaffiliated members being vetted for their qualifications -- can you point to an example? Or is it simply that different views are not welcome?
Antony
On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, would you want to join a club that would have you as a member?
I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance.
Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power..."
Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote?
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have signed registry contracts with ICANN. Until new TLDs happen, we don't qualify. We are allowed to observe, but not participate. I kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore.
You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be a place for me *somewhere.* Luckily there is, but only one -- under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO. It's pretty much the "membership of last resort." It is in that capacity that I am participating. It's disheartening to be told that I should take my point of view elsewhere.
Antony
P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he is no longer with Demand Media. He's pretty much in the same boat I am. Waiting for Godot...
P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date.
However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/)
According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) ("Registries") (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG."
According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf), Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food.
Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman.
NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS."
In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role.
However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are:
* Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups
I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.
As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open.
a.
On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." > > I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> >> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >> >> Hi, >> >> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? >> >> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? >> >> with kind regards, >> a. >> >> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >>> volunteer time into the details. >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ > >
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
As per our rules of order, as Secretariat, I find no reason why this person should not/would not be accepted as an individual of the NARALO D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Antony Van Couvering [avc@avc.vc] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 7:23 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard My general statement of interest is found here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/soi-swg-10sep10-en.htm#van-couvering - I am subscribed to the NA-Discuss list - I am a permanent member of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN (the US of A) - I am not a member of a certified ALS Antony Van Couvering On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Having helped draft the last revision to the rules on unaffiliated members, I can state that the only rules are:
- 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
and you must submit a statement of interest certifying that you meet these rules. There is an additional rule that the formal representative of the unaffilitated members, who gets to vote on their behalf on the rare cases that we have votes, must must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar.
The formal document can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?na_2007_1_1rev1_draft_naralo_operat.... Sadly, it is still marked as a draft even though adopted. And just as sad, I just found a typo in the section on unaffiliated members....
Alan
At 29/03/2011 06:03 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Beau,
I want to be a formal part of ICANN, that's all. There's a simple reason, which we saw evidenced at a recent public comment session at ICANN in SF -- formally constituted groups have priority of place, their positions are considered formally by the Board, etc. Everywhere I go, it's the same story as I'm getting from you -- go elsewhere.
I wasn't aware that one needed to show up at a NARALO meeting to "make a case" for unaffiliated membership. Indeed, I wasn't aware that physical participation was a requirement for any ALAC membership. Am I wrong? I've been on this list for some time now and I've seen groups admitted by a simple "ok with me" from a few existing members. I've never seen any unaffiliated members being vetted for their qualifications -- can you point to an example? Or is it simply that different views are not welcome?
Antony
On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, would you want to join a club that would have you as a member?
I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance.
Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power..."
Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote?
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have signed registry contracts with ICANN. Until new TLDs happen, we don't qualify. We are allowed to observe, but not participate. I kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore.
You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be a place for me *somewhere.* Luckily there is, but only one -- under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO. It's pretty much the "membership of last resort." It is in that capacity that I am participating. It's disheartening to be told that I should take my point of view elsewhere.
Antony
P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he is no longer with Demand Media. He's pretty much in the same boat I am. Waiting for Godot...
P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date.
However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/)
According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) ("Registries") (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG."
According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf), Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food.
Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman.
NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members: * be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, * be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN, * not be a member of a certified ALS."
In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role.
However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are:
* Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.) * Academic and research organizations * Community networking groups * Consumer advocacy groups * Internet Society chapters * Computer user organizations * Internet civil society groups
I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives.
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
Hi,
But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not. And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.
As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG. So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns. I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified? I understand a number of them are open.
a.
On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." > > I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas. > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> >> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM >> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >> >> Hi, >> >> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position? Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of? >> >> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency? >> >> with kind regards, >> a. >> >> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about >>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial >>> volunteer time into the details. >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ > >
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Antony Van Couvering -
Beau Brendler -
Thompson, Darlene