Hello The concept of "saving funds" doesn't apply as the VP in charge of At Large has indicated that funds are available for both events. If ALSes want to attend and meet face to face before June, then there will be a meeting. If not, then there won't be. I thought that was clear. There can't reasonably be a meeting with one person! Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control" - at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:22 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Wendy Seltzer wrote:

I understand based on our ALAC teleconference this morning that this "invitation" should be seen as a proposal to hold a meeting, not an assertion that a meeting will take place. If you agree that it would be more effective to save the North America funds for travel to whole-ICANN meetings, please respond with that message.

I agree with Wendy's sentiment as expressed above. Perhaps it might be a good idea to have a conference call in lieu of the NY meeting, in prep for something personal at San Juan. As much as it happens everyday, language manipulation continues to astound me. The distinction between "invitation" and "proposal for a meeting date/place" is real and significant and -- I'd previously believed -- well understood. Confusing them would appear to indicate either severe problems in communications skills, or a wilfull intent to impose control. Or both. - Evan _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control" - at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...

Hello Jaqueline, What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) ); The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend. Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place. The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves. If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy. - Evan

Part of the problem leading up to the Vancouver (non)meeting was confusion over the procedure. This led to delay. This led to it being pretty much too later to be carried off well. I am sure that influenced some of the decision making. -MM On 4/10/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:

Hello Evan The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate - Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore.

The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as well.

Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, it can be anywhere..

Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available in every city in the world...

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting

...

Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control"

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: -

...

at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...

Hello Jaqueline,

What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) );

The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend.

Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place.

The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves.

If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy.

- Evan

-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

Hello Evan The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate - Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore.

Yup. ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking process, so it just changes the rules and process. When ALAC members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way ICANN treats all its critics.

The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as well.

There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan. If the North Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an opportunity to meet. --Wendy

Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, it can be anywhere..

Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available in every city in the world...

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting

...

Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control"

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: -

...

at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...

Hello Jaqueline,

What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) );

The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend.

Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place.

The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves.

If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy.

- Evan

-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency.

Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently. I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues? --Wendy

...

From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change.

Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these efforts.

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/

Re-titled so that others may find this message in overflowing mailboxes: The GNSO is chartering another working group on WHOIS and the privacy issues implicated by its publicly available database of domain name registrants' identifying information (name, address, email, and telephone number). The previous working group proposed permitting registrants to replace this personal information with an "Operational Point of Contact," who could accept notices and pass them along to the registrant. The new working group is tasked with determining operational details of that plan, among other things. The working group is open to anyone, and since it is chartered to work by consensus rather than vote, individuals may actually have meaningful opportunity to shape the discussion here. Please, join us! More info at <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html> and pasted below. Please email Maria Farrell (maria.farrell at icann.org) or the GNSO Secretariat (GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG) if you would like to join the working group. --Wendy As per the GNSO resolution in Lisbon, a WHOIS Working Group is being formed with a 120-day timeline. All may participate. The Charter for the WHOIS Working Group may be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html 1 Introduction The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction. 2 Background Whois ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is made available. The data includes contact information of natural persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and voice telephone numbers. Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make policy recommendations to the Board on: 1.The purpose of the Whois service 2.The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which the data is collected. 3.Which data should be available for public access, and determine how to access data that is not available for public access. 4.How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data. 5.How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN agreements, and local or national privacy laws Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the ICANN website at (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm). The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee. Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised. 3 Objective The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address these issues. 4 Work Plan 4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled. 4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities. The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) activities, including: 1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams; 2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names; 3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing national and international laws, including, for example, countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental entities may be involved in this work; 4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings. 5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and international treaties; 6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and efficient means of information and communication and as an important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for content and services online; and 7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of the public. 4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use).. The membership of this WG extends to the following: • Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors • GNSO constituency members In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings. Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. The email address of the GNSO Secretariat is GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/

Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows? Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why? If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2 /000588.html With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?" I haven't seen any such issue, have you? Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets. I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options. An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose. In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO). Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation. Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN). I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS. So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I haven't seen ANY suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status - we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look at the years past, and the future - to decide where we want to go, who we want to represent and in what way. Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's diverse, (and hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar final goal. And that would be a great pity. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO Hi Jacqueline, I can remember when we had elected at-large directors. I am one of those that remains willing to fight for what is right -- the return of the representation that has been denied to us. The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the representation that has been taken away from our community. You should be ashamed. One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a Review Committee) point out the proper path for your community. This is about self-empowerment and deciding for yourself which is the best way forward. There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the DNSO. They left that organization to start their own Supporting Organization. They had the guts to do what was best for them. This conversation is all about asking the important questions, such as: why should we accept a structure (ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent disenfranchisement of our rights? Without your right to board-level representation you have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:

Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?

Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?

If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.

Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO

There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2

/000588.html

With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"

I haven't seen any such issue, have you?

Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.

I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.

An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.

In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).

Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.

Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.

____________________________________________________________________________

________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org

-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

I didn't want to prolong this, but curiosity got the better of me... I promise to let it go after this... How did these rights get taken away? By whom? How did all these At Large advocates, with direct representation on the Board, lose their franchise? What did the directly elected Board members do to stop it? Is there an objective analysis of the failure anywhere with lessons learnt so that we may not repeat the mistakes? Besides - if these rights were taken away so long ago and you've been fighting for them to be returned for so long and haven't had any success, maybe it's time to change tactics? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:06 PM To: 'Danny Younger'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN). I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS. So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I haven't seen ANY suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status - we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look at the years past, and the future - to decide where we want to go, who we want to represent and in what way. Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's diverse, (and hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar final goal. And that would be a great pity. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO Hi Jacqueline, I can remember when we had elected at-large directors. I am one of those that remains willing to fight for what is right -- the return of the representation that has been denied to us. The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the representation that has been taken away from our community. You should be ashamed. One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a Review Committee) point out the proper path for your community. This is about self-empowerment and deciding for yourself which is the best way forward. There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the DNSO. They left that organization to start their own Supporting Organization. They had the guts to do what was best for them. This conversation is all about asking the important questions, such as: why should we accept a structure (ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent disenfranchisement of our rights? Without your right to board-level representation you have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:

Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?

Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?

If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.

Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO

There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2

/000588.html

With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"

I haven't seen any such issue, have you?

Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.

I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.

An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.

In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).

Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.

Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.

____________________________________________________________________________

________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org

-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

amen, Amen and AMEN Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:33 PM Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin?

The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can.

As one of the newcomers, I can say one thing for certain; it's all so very headache-inducing. On one hand: I'm tired of repeated commentaries on the evil ICANN staff conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone outside of three people named George. On the other hand: ICANN itself, through a combination of action and inaction, has given plenty of credibilty to the accusations. And the end result is a lot of zero. IMO this isn't about being good spirited, it's about being patient in the hope that sooner or later there'll actually be a policy to be debated. The vast majority of the discussion on these lists so far has been about meetings to determine _structure_. Even these meetings don't appear to have on their plate anything actually policy-related. When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread public interest. MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without the historical baggage?

Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again.

If that's the case, what the heck are you doing here? What am I doing here? Don't we have better things to do than bang heads into brick walls? If I want to be told what I don't have, I only need to ask my wife. I have two pleas to the folks involved in this process: ICANN staff: Live up to the promises Jacob made to us last year, that we would be genuinely engaged and consulted on ICANN issues. Frankly I couldn't care less about the structure -- geographic, linguistic, or based on tarot cards -- but come up with something that prioritizes efficient knowledge transfer. The best way to address the complaints is with utter clarity and openness; let people know exactly what this process offers and what it doesn't. All the structure, recognition, and airline pretzels are pointless if the POV of ALSs is not meaningfully expressed -- and addressed -- on ALL relevant issues. If this isn't possible or desired then please stop wasting my time. And don't assume silence means consent, sometimes it just means the situation is too confused for an informed response. Angry old-timers: If you're indeed correct about ICANN being opaque and impervious to comment, stop encouraging that behaviour by spending so much time on complaining and wheel-spinning -- because in the meantime real policy discussion CAN'T take place, and the targets of your ire aren't listening. Clarity in the objections is also sorely lacking -- concentrate on the gaps between what exists and what was formally committed. Help us know factually what ICANN won't tell us directly while working within the procss that exists, and let us make our own minds up rather than being indignant on our behalf. If the current process is pointless, let's change it with concrete alternatives whose development doesn't get mixed in with ICANN policy debate. Otherwise, our mandate is better served by getting out and going public. Obviously there are many with deep investments -- of time, effort and emotions -- in this process. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone individually, but I make no apologies for my exhaustion from a mix of bureaucratic bafflegab and petty scoldings. - Evan _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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

Indeed, great post Evan. On 4/11/07, Jacob Malthouse <jacob.malthouse@icann.org> wrote:

Evan,

I've sent your email to our management. I think you've captured the fundamentals around this process well. I'll keep you informed and push for a considered response as soon as possible.

cheers, Jacob

Jacob Malthouse ICANN jacob.malthouse@icann.org 310 430 3856

On 11-Apr-07, at 11:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

...

The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can.

As one of the newcomers, I can say one thing for certain; it's all so very headache-inducing.

On one hand: I'm tired of repeated commentaries on the evil ICANN staff conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone outside of three people named George.

On the other hand: ICANN itself, through a combination of action and inaction, has given plenty of credibilty to the accusations. And the end result is a lot of zero.

IMO this isn't about being good spirited, it's about being patient in the hope that sooner or later there'll actually be a policy to be debated. The vast majority of the discussion on these lists so far has been about meetings to determine _structure_. Even these meetings don't appear to have on their plate anything actually policy-related.

When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread public interest.

MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without the historical baggage?

...

Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again.

If that's the case, what the heck are you doing here? What am I doing here? Don't we have better things to do than bang heads into brick walls? If I want to be told what I don't have, I only need to ask my wife.

I have two pleas to the folks involved in this process:

ICANN staff: Live up to the promises Jacob made to us last year, that we would be genuinely engaged and consulted on ICANN issues. Frankly I couldn't care less about the structure -- geographic, linguistic, or based on tarot cards -- but come up with something that prioritizes efficient knowledge transfer. The best way to address the complaints is with utter clarity and openness; let people know exactly what this process offers and what it doesn't. All the structure, recognition, and airline pretzels are pointless if the POV of ALSs is not meaningfully expressed -- and addressed -- on ALL relevant issues. If this isn't possible or desired then please stop wasting my time. And don't assume silence means consent, sometimes it just means the situation is too confused for an informed response.

Angry old-timers: If you're indeed correct about ICANN being opaque and impervious to comment, stop encouraging that behaviour by spending so much time on complaining and wheel-spinning -- because in the meantime real policy discussion CAN'T take place, and the targets of your ire aren't listening. Clarity in the objections is also sorely lacking -- concentrate on the gaps between what exists and what was formally committed. Help us know factually what ICANN won't tell us directly while working within the procss that exists, and let us make our own minds up rather than being indignant on our behalf. If the current process is pointless, let's change it with concrete alternatives whose development doesn't get mixed in with ICANN policy debate. Otherwise, our mandate is better served by getting out and going public.

Obviously there are many with deep investments -- of time, effort and emotions -- in this process. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone individually, but I make no apologies for my exhaustion from a mix of bureaucratic bafflegab and petty scoldings.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Evan Leibovitch ha scritto:

When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread public interest.

[out of lurk mode] Hello - for those who do not know me yet, I am one of the European ALAC members, and the current Board liaison for the At Large. I do not want to interfere with your discussions, as - being one of the people who came up with the regional subdivision idea almost five years ago - I strongly believe that each Region should feel free to work as it likes. However, being your liaison to the ICANN Board, I wanted to clarify about the above. No one was informed of the decision on .xxx before it was taken publicly at the Lisbon meeting, first of all because - while of course the Board, after the long and extensive discussions, had a sense of where the majority was going - everyone could still change their vote until the very moment that it was cast; and we knew that it was going to be a tight call. And secondly, because Board members, especially on such a delicate and lawsuit-prone matter, have a duty of confidentiality. On the other hand, what was possible and actually happened is that the At Large could provide input to the Board as a constituency (of course each of us is free to also provide input to the Board directly, using the public comment opportunities). I solicited several times the ALAC to prepare a public statement, but in the end we realized that there was no real consensus, so what I said instead (see the transcript of the public Board session) is that there were different opinions (which is a perfectly reasonable advice to the Board). However, some of the North American ALAC members were the staunchest speakers in favour of approving .xxx, and so this was also part of my statement. In the RALO model, the role of the ALAC members is to act as a channel between the Region and the ALAC: they should speak on behalf of the group, and possibly solicit agreed positions (even if sometimes there is the need for almost immediate reaction, which might not make it possible to go through a full consultation cycle). IMHO you should finalize the RALO structure as soon as possible, and work out proper procedures to make that channel work. On the other hand, my "job" (unpaid, of course...) is to bring views from the global At Large community to the ICANN Board. So if you ever felt like there is something being discussed at the Board level and on which you want to provide an opinion or get more information, feel free to drop me an email. I try to keep up with my inbox, it's not always easy but I promise I'll do my best. I also try to ask for views to the global At Large list (I hope you're on that as well) whenever this is possible, given that, as I said, part of what I get to know as a non-voting Board member is confidential. Specifically, after the Registerfly case, I've been working both on the ALAC resolution on that matter (again, I hope it was circulated here as well) and to get a commitment from the Board to revise the RAA including more consumer-protection-oriented clauses. Thanks to some Board members who shared this view, we had a specific resolution that binds ICANN's CEO to come up with a process for that. This, IMHO, is a very hot issue in which the NA ALSes should play a major role. There are other important ones as well, such as Whois or "domain tasting", and Alan might have others from the GNSO. Feel free to bug me, Jacqueline or your ALAC representatives to ensure that you are in the loop on policy matters, if for any reason (time constraints, usually - we are all volunteers with other daytime jobs) we fail to solicit input.

MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without the historical baggage?

...but also to many of those with the historical baggage :-) IMHO, without all this resistence, we could have had RALOs in place two years ago, and perhaps we'd already have voting Board representatives by now. Regards, [now back to lurk mode] -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion: NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused. The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...). This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective. NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows: "The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES." ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

Hi Wendy, Although I am a member of the NCUC, I do not endorse this motion. My reasons are as follows: It is important to recognize that all points of view and their respective justifications should make their way upward to the Board for their consideration, and that includes the minority recommendations contained within the report. When we act to deal with implementation issues and only concern ourselves with one set of policy recommendations (the narrow majority view) we do a disservice to the Board that is obligated to look at the whole picture and that must select a way forward that best serves the interests of the Corporation. The Board is under no obligation to accept a majority solution -- they are at liberty to pick and choose from among competing proposals. Speaking as someone that contributed a written proposal to the TF (The Natural Persons Proposal) who is fully aware of the fact that TF members didn't properly review either the public comments or the other proposals tendered (including the one that you co-authored with Avri Doria and Robin Gross), I see a need for a more expansive effort that would examine implementation considerations for all the proposals put forth. My two cents, Danny --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:

Do ALAC (and/or participating ALSs) endorse this NCUC motion? I do, and it would be great to convey that support via Alan to the Council when it votes on the Terms of Reference tomorrow. (All we can do, since we don't have votes, is to endorse others' positions or to get voting members to endorse ours...)

--Wendy

Danny Younger wrote:

...

To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion:

NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused.

The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...).

This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective.

NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows:

"The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES."

____________________________________________________________________________________

...

It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

...

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 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/

____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

From my point of view:

The WHOIS information is a little too public. Privacy services are often offered by registrars at an additional cost. Therefore, it seems to me it should be made a choice whether to make information public, and so too should the cost of the privacy be a choice. Really, only ICANN and my registrar should have my contact information. Not just anyone who wants to mine the data from one of the many available access points. Thanks, Randy Glass A@L On 4/11/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:

Re-titled so that others may find this message in overflowing mailboxes:

The GNSO is chartering another working group on WHOIS and the privacy issues implicated by its publicly available database of domain name registrants' identifying information (name, address, email, and telephone number). The previous working group proposed permitting registrants to replace this personal information with an "Operational Point of Contact," who could accept notices and pass them along to the registrant. The new working group is tasked with determining operational details of that plan, among other things.

The working group is open to anyone, and since it is chartered to work by consensus rather than vote, individuals may actually have meaningful opportunity to shape the discussion here. Please, join us!

More info at <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html> and pasted below.

Please email Maria Farrell (maria.farrell at icann.org) or the GNSO Secretariat (GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG) if you would like to join the working group.

--Wendy

As per the GNSO resolution in Lisbon, a WHOIS Working Group is being formed with a 120-day timeline. All may participate.

The Charter for the WHOIS Working Group may be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html

1 Introduction The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.

2 Background Whois ICANN's agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is made available. The data includes contact information of natural persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and voice telephone numbers.

Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make policy recommendations to the Board on: 1.The purpose of the Whois service 2.The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which the data is collected. 3.Which data should be available for public access, and determine how to access data that is not available for public access. 4.How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data. 5.How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN agreements, and local or national privacy laws

Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the ICANN website at ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm ). The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee. Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised.

3 Objective The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address these issues.

4 Work Plan 4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled.

4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities.

The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) activities, including:

1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams;

2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names;

3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing national and international laws, including, for example, countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental entities may be involved in this work;

4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings.

5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and international treaties;

6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and efficient means of information and communication and as an important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for content and services online; and

7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of the public.

4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use)..

The membership of this WG extends to the following:

• Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors • GNSO constituency members

In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis:

Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings.

Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.

The email address of the GNSO Secretariat is GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

Hi Darlene We have 3 options, I think: NY on the original days (clashes with the Montreal meeting) NY on different days (before or after ) Montreal before or after the Montreal meeting. We haven't got info from Robert/Luc on the details of setting up a meeting in Montreal yet, though. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:40 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting I will be applying to be on that working group immediately - thank you! Now, perhaps we could stay on topic. I WAS around for the lack of discussion that happened around the Vancouver meeting as was Michael Miranda and others. We need to discuss whether we are going to have this meeting or not and where. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:05 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Thompson, Darlene wrote:

Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency.

Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently. I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues? --Wendy

...

From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take

part

by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change.

Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these efforts.

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@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/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

quick comments... - coordinating the may NA meeting. Who is the lead person. I've traditionally corresponded with Jacob and other NA ALS's about such matters. should i continue to do so, or not? I'm confused by the earlier reference to a North American Liason staffer. Know there's a Canadian liason, but was not aware there was a NA one as well. Has Jacob been promoted to cover both Canada, the Caribbean & USA? - Phone meeting, of course is always an option. structured well, it could be as productive - if not more than a face to face meeting. - as this is a NA issue, can the matter be confined to the NA list? Getting duplicate messages is , well, a bit of a nuisance. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 11-Apr-07, at 3:01 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

...

Hi Darlene

We have 3 options, I think: NY on the original days (clashes with the Montreal meeting) NY on different days (before or after ) Montreal before or after the Montreal meeting.

4. Meet by phone.

--Wendy

...

We haven't got info from Robert/Luc on the details of setting up a meeting in Montreal yet, though.

Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:40 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting

I will be applying to be on that working group immediately - thank you!

Now, perhaps we could stay on topic. I WAS around for the lack of discussion that happened around the Vancouver meeting as was Michael Miranda and others.

We need to discuss whether we are going to have this meeting or not and where.

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:05 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

...

Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency.

Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently.

I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues?

--Wendy

...

...

From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change.

Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these efforts.

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 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/

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org

With regard to the Draft Operating Principles point #4 that states "Public documents will be produced in English and French", I would like to know why a decision was made not to include Spanish. I'm told that Canada's population is currently about 33 million (with Wikipedia reporting that "roughly 31% of Canadian citizens are French-speaking). That translates into around 10 million speakers of French. As of the last U.S. Census, America had 1,700,000 French speakers. Combined figures would therefore total around 12 million French speakers in the region. Spanish speakers in the U.S. totaled a little more than 17 million in the year 2000 and everyone knows that the U.S. has been inundated lately with illegal immigrants from South of the border. Clearly, Spanish is a language used in the North American region to a greater degree than French. Let me also remind everyone that in Puerto Rico (part of ICANN's North American Region) the dominant language spoken is Spanish. Reference documents: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Canadian http://www.icann.org/montreal/geo-regions-topic.htm ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

With regard to the Draft Naralo Operating Principles point #5 that states: "The governance of the NARALO will be exercised by a General Assembly, formed by 2 representatives of each member ALS and 2 members from among the unaffiliated individuals", the language is totally unacceptable. Why I hold this view: I refer you to the document entitled "The ICANN Experiment" authored by current ICANN Director Susan P. Crawford wherein it states: "First, the dependence of the democratic story on a bounded electorate can be met by ICANN’s agreements with those who participate in its processes - registries, registrars, businesses, registrants, and any other people or entities who “show up” as part of the ICANN process. The contours of this group will change constantly, of course, but ICANN will be able know roughly who it is talking to and who has agreed to be bound by ICANN determinations. The idea that “who shows up” may be taken as a representative sample of the rest of the world is part of ICANN’s history (and that of other more technical groups such as the IETF). ICANN has established constituencies within the DNSO for business, IP, registries, non-commercial entities, and others. Because it is impossible to get a cross- section of (for example) every non-commercial Internet user, the ICANN system treats the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency (that is, the people who “show up”) as the representative constituency. This is a practical approach that can be implemented with a simple contractual agreement to participate, pay minor dues, and adhere to consensus policies (to the extent applicable)." Under the current scheme the voting process has been totally captured by organizational entities at the expense of the individual members of the vast at-large community. This is completely unacceptable to those of us that believe that equal rights should accrue to those individuals that "show up". The At-Large has always been about "individuals"; not about organizations. Organizations already have a home in the NCUC; organizations should not be supplanting the individual in the one body within ICANN that purportedly speaks for the individual user. Reference document: http://scrawford.net/display/Crawford2.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

Thanks Bret. I've gone over the MOU and OP of the other RALOs and made some changes to both our documents to incorporate a few interesting things I found in them. I have 2 questions: 1. Are we really going to get away with the MOU's parag. 6.4? 2. Why do we need parag. 6.5? _________________________________________ 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: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of bfausett@internet.law.pro Sent: 11 avril 2007 17:36 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Action Items

Following up on Luc's summary from Tuesday, copied below, here's what I see as the order for things to proceed...

(1) The first thing on which we need agreement is the terms of the Draft MOU with ICANN and the Draft Operating Principles.

Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

If we can reach agreement on these online or by teleconference, we really shouldn't need an in-person meeting. As I understand the formation process from the other regions, the governing documents were the central focus for their face-to-face meeting. Here in North America, while we have a handful of languages spoken, most everyone has mastery of English, so we should have some added comfort in discussing the points and reaching agreement.

(2) AFTER we've signed off on our chartering documents, and assuming that the adopted chartering documents look somewhat like they do now in draft, each individual ALS will need to name its representatives to the General Assembly.

(3) The General Assembly will elect its Chair.

(4) The Chair of the General Assembly will oversee the election of the 2 ALAC Representatives. Election and seating of ALAC representatives.

(5) The Chair of the General Assembly will work with the ALAC, ICANN Staff and the General Assembly to select a permanent Secretariat to support the work of the NARALO.

Why don't we spend some time working through Item (1) on the list so we can see what still remains. If we have substantial disagreements about how things should work, we'll be able to spot those now and put them on the agenda for teleconferences and, if necessary, a face-to-face meeting in May.

-- Bret

...

-----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:24 AM To: Bret Fausett; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents?

The links to our documents are:

Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

What remains to do, as far as I can tell, is:

- for everybody to agree on the 2 documents, - for each ALS to name its 2 representatives to the General Assembly, - for individual users to name their 2 reps to the GA, - name the Chair of the General Assembly, - name our Secreteriat, - choose our 2 ALAC reps.

_________________________________________ 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 10 avril 2007 13:59 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents?

My recollection from our previous discussions was that we had money set aside for two meetings: one for RALO formation and one for the signing meeting. We had discussed doing the RALO formation online and by teleconference -- and, frankly, aren't we almost complete with the draft MOU? -- and using the travel money for San Juan and the ICANN annual meeting in November (Bombay?).

What I believe is now on the table is an option for a RALO meeting in Yonkers, NY in early May for RALO formation. As with the proposed meeting in Vancouver, I personally would recommend against the Yonkers meeting and, instead, recommend using the funds for Bombay travel in November.

Before we call this to a vote, or a consensus hum as it may be, perhaps we should review where we are on the documents. If there's really not much left to resolve, then this may be an easy call. As much as I like grabbing beers and meeting new people, as Jacob suggested we do, I'd rather do that around a meeting with a substantive agenda.

Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short summary of where we are and what remains to decide?

Many thanks,

Bret

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org

Posted on the Governance List: April, 11, 2007 U. S. District Court - Middle District of North Carolina Honorable TREVOR P. SHARP Greensboro Courtroom #1A CASE: 1:07-cv-00188-UA-PTS MARTINEZ v. REGISTERFLY, INC., et al 09:30 AM Motion Hearing Motions: http://www.registerfly-lawsuit.com/registerfly-documents/ - Docket: http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/calendar.htm -- RegisterFly Class Action Update April 10, 2007 Unfortunately I was just called by the clerk's office this afternoon, and Magistrate Judge Sharp just granted ICANN's Motion to continue the hearing from tomorrow April 11th 2007 to an undetermined date. I know this is bad news for so many of you who are still trapped, and it is one more breach by ICANN of their duty to protect the public. I plan on filing a new request for an immediate TRO based upon the unfolding situation, however I cannot disclose the details at this time. I have been compiling affidavits and evidence of ongoing fraud since the last hearing. I am preparing documents to be filed soon. I am continuing to fight for all of those who are still trapped. I will keep you updated as the case unfolds. Clarke Dummit ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

Before my ALAC term ended last December I was floating the idea of meeting in Las Vegas. Generally there are reasonably-priced flights to there and same with the lower cost hotels there. It did seem like a spot sort of in the middle of the accredited NA ALS's at the time. At 11:05 AM -0800 4/15/07, RJGlass | America@Large recently said:

I agree with the process to proceed. I wonder if there is a way to come to a consensus rather than relying on the group emails?

So far as the face to face meetings, I would very much like to be in attendance, however please realize that 2 of the NA ALSs are in Honolulu. Travel to Yonkers is about a 6,000 mile trip. I am planning to meet in San Juan, but maybe more central locations would be better.

-Randy Glass A@L

On 4/11/07, <mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro>bfausett@internet.law.pro <<mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro> bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:

Following up on Luc's summary from Tuesday, copied below, here's what I see as the order for things to proceed...

(1) The first thing on which we need agreement is the terms of the Draft MOU with ICANN and the Draft Operating Principles.

Draft MoU with ICANN: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

If we can reach agreement on these online or by teleconference, we really shouldn't need an in-person meeting. As I understand the formation process from the other regions, the governing documents were the central focus for their face-to-face meeting. Here in North America, while we have a handful of languages spoken, most everyone has mastery of English, so we should have some added comfort in discussing the points and reaching agreement.

(2) AFTER we've signed off on our chartering documents, and assuming that the adopted chartering documents look somewhat like they do now in draft, each individual ALS will need to name its representatives to the General Assembly.

(3) The General Assembly will elect its Chair.

(4) The Chair of the General Assembly will oversee the election of the 2 ALAC Representatives. Election and seating of ALAC representatives.

(5) The Chair of the General Assembly will work with the ALAC, ICANN Staff and the General Assembly to select a permanent Secretariat to support the work of the NARALO.

Why don't we spend some time working through Item (1) on the list so we can see what still remains. If we have substantial disagreements about how things should work, we'll be able to spot those now and put them on the agenda for teleconferences and, if necessary, a face-to-face meeting in May.

-- Bret

...

-----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:<mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca>LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:24 AM To: Bret Fausett; <mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents?

The links to our documents are:

Draft MoU with ICANN: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

What remains to do, as far as I can tell, is:

- for everybody to agree on the 2 documents, - for each ALS to name its 2 representatives to the General Assembly, - for individual users to name their 2 reps to the GA, - name the Chair of the General Assembly, - name our Secreteriat, - choose our 2 ALAC reps.

_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 <http://www.LucFaubert.com>www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.isoc.qc.ca>www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.ccig.ca> www.ccig.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca>www.maillons.qc.ca

...

-----Original Message----- From: <mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org

[mailto:<mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret

...

Fausett Sent: 10 avril 2007 13:59 To: <mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Status report on NA-RALO documents?

My recollection from our previous discussions was that we had money set aside for two meetings: one for RALO formation and one for the signing meeting. We had discussed doing the RALO formation online and by teleconference -- and, frankly, aren't we almost complete with the draft MOU? -- and using the travel money for San Juan and the ICANN annual meeting in November (Bombay?).

What I believe is now on the table is an option for a RALO meeting in Yonkers, NY in early May for RALO formation. As with the proposed meeting in Vancouver, I personally would recommend against the Yonkers meeting and, instead, recommend using the funds for Bombay travel in November.

Before we call this to a vote, or a consensus hum as it may be, perhaps we should review where we are on the documents. If there's really not much left to resolve, then this may be an easy call. As much as I like grabbing beers and meeting new people, as Jacob suggested we do, I'd rather do that around a meeting with a substantive agenda.

Nick, can you send us pointers to the documents and give us a short summary of where we are and what remains to decide?

Many thanks,

Bret

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list

<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

...

<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl <http://arge-lists.icann.org>arge-lists.icann.org

...

--- Draft MoU with ICANN: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

<http://www.alac.icann.org>www.alac.icann.org <http://www.icannalac.org>www.icannalac.org

-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org

You may want to have a quick look at a map now, however. When you start considering Canadian ALSs (especially myself) that no longer holds true.

Of course I considered the Canadian ALS's, and yours. See below. (Sample distances- apologies if I missed a "far end" ALS) ( http://www.indo.com/cgi-bin/dist ) Distance between Iqaluit-Las Vegas as the crow flies: 2715 miles (4369 km) Honolulu-Las Vegas, Nevada 2754 miles (4431 km) Las Vegas -San Juan, Puerto Rico 3222 miles (5186 km) Las Vegas-Montreal 2246 miles (3615 km) Calgary- Honolulu 3117 miles (5016 km) Calgary - San Juan 3446 miles (5547 km) Calgary- Iqaluit 1860 miles (2994 km) Vancouver- Honolulu is 2707 miles (4356 km) Vancouver- San Juan is 3789 (6098 km) Vancouver- Iqaluit is 2226 miles (3582 km) Chicago- Iqaluit 1699 miles (2735 km) Chicago- San Juan 2056 miles (3309 km) Chicago- Honolulu 4249 miles (6839 km) New York seems like one of the worst locations.... NYC- Honolulu 4968 miles (7996 km) NYC-Iqaluit 1611 miles (2593 km)