Apologies for the delay in replying. We had severe storms here yesterday afternoon and I lost my power and Internet until this morning. OK, let's do 9 a.m. EST. I will tell Marilyn and Seth. For those of you who haven't seen the exchange between Olivier and Marc, here it is: Dear Marc, thank you for your letter of resignation which I accept with deep regret. I appreciate that the time demands which are placed on ALAC members are high when wishing to be involved fully in ALAC processes, RALOs and At-Large grassroots input to ICANN. It is something which we all have to struggle with. I also share your concerns regarding decisions by national governments and other factors external to ICANN. However, our mission in ICANN is limited to the by-laws under which we operate and this mission is quite focussed. The responsibilities which were defined to avoid a scattering of resources, are listed in Articles XI.4.a and XI.4.j and surpassing those limits, although tempting, is not something which the ALAC should do. The responsibility of the ALAC is to make the voice of Internet users heard in ICANN - and this has to be done with the scarce resources which we are afforded, both in funding and in volunteer time. I have enjoyed working with you on the Internet Town Hall in San Francisco and hope that you will remain in contact with the ICANN At-Large community. I know that many members have appreciated meeting you and will look forward to keeping in touch. However, with your resignation, your participation in the ICANN Singapore meeting cannot be justified and after consultation with the Executive Committee, it was decided to enable another At-Large member to travel to Singapore. I trust that you will understand this, and wish you every success in the future. Sincerely, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 07/06/2011 21:36, Marc Rotenberg wrote :

Dear Olivier,

I am tendering my resignation from ALAC.

Upon further consideration, I do not believe I have the considerable amount of time required to make a meaningful contribution to ALAC.

I do believe that the Internet Town Hall, which we organized in conjunction with the recent meeting in San Francisco, provided the opportunity for a fresh perspective on Future Challenges facing users of the Internet.

I also believe that the decision of national governments to suspend access to the Internet poses a profound challenge to the freedom of Internet users that cannot be ignored.

And I remain concerned about the technical and administrative obstacles that continue to consume so much of our valuable time and make it difficult for people to obtain even basic information about the work of ALAC.

To be an effective representative of the individual Internet user, as the ALAC charter requires, the Committee should focus less on the organizational structure of ICANN and more on the needs and concerns of the Internet user. A clear vision can help transform an organization.

Whether ALAC chooses to explore that possibility is now up to the Committee.

I appreciated the opportunity to meet many fine individuals, and hope to see them again in the future. And I admire your dedication as Chair. I wish you the very best.

I will attend the meeting in Singapore or not, based upon your preference.

Sincerely,

Marc Rotenberg

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) -----Original Message-----

From: Gordon Chillcott <gordontc@look.ca> Sent: Jun 10, 2011 7:41 AM To: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations, next week's call, other issues

I can make it to a meeting on Monday morning, too. Again, just let us know.

Gordon

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 12:36 -0400, Eduardo Diaz wrote:

...

Beau:

I can make the call in the morning (EST). Just let us know. Thursday I am going to be in transit to Singapore.

By the way, I did not see the note about Marc resigning.

-ed

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>wrote:

...

Greetings.

1. I am assuming everyone saw the note yesterday about Marc Rotenberg's resignation from his nom com slot on ALAC. I think this is a big loss to us and to the effort of improving relations with the NCSG/UC but we all know what it's like not to have enough time for this work.

2. I see some consensus over the past week on the possibility of sending a brief statement to ICANN on the pre-registration matter that, in effect, suggests it take a similar action to what was done a few years back, i.e., a sort of "consumer alert" (though the intended audience really would be businesses and entities interested in gTLDs). If so I will attempt to draft something brief over the next 24 hours and send it to the list for a quick round of feedback. If someone else would rather do that, let me know.

3. I believe there is a NA-RALO call scheduled for early next week. I will only be available to do that early Monday EST (say during the 9 a.m. to 12 noon slot), but not again until Thursday, as I will be in transit to Singapore. Please let me know what you would like to do -- reschedule call, cancel, etc.

4. Don't forget that it would be very helpful for us attending the Singapore meeting to have some input from all of you on policy issues. I have collected what has been said so far (some of it ranging to issues outside policy development, such as recruitment), but there's certainly room for more requests/input.

5. I was not able to attend the recent call to discuss the budget. I believe we have had a chance to review the document -- NA-RALO got basically $5K to do a survey/study and another $1K to produce a recruitment video for YouTube and other venues -- all the other requests were turned down. We can communicate some more about whether it would be a good idea to try to convene an NARALO general assembly at the Toronto meeting, as there should be some travel funds to spare -- a number of us are within cheap travel distance from there.

More when I have a chance...

Beau

-----Original Message-----

...

From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Sent: Jun 6, 2011 1:10 PM To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net, dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations

Eric B-W wrote:

"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress."

After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it.

I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.

-----Original Message-----

...

From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations

Danny,

I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.

Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.

If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.

Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.

How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.

The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.

I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.

Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------