Greetings, all. As discussed in the call this week, I'm asking for any specific comments or concerns you may have, regarding the issues in which I have some involvement coming up in Paris. Anything you want me to say? In other words. 1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") This is not a perfect choice of background but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly). 2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting, more like hors d'oeuvres. 3. New gTLDs. (Note there is an informational briefing scheduled on this for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11 (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_progra m)
Hi Beau, I would appreciate a return to the theme of accountability. It would be appreciated if the ALAC could formulate a Statement regarding the document entitled, "Next steps in continuous improvement of ICANN dispute resolution and Board processes" -- see http://www.icann.org/transparency/next-steps-dispute-resolution-11jan08.pdf thanks, Danny --- On Tue, 6/10/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 2:53 PM Greetings, all. As discussed in the call this week, I'm asking for any specific comments or concerns you may have, regarding the issues in which I have some involvement coming up in Paris. Anything you want me to say? In other words.
1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") This is not a perfect choice of background but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly).
2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting, more like hors d'oeuvres.
3. New gTLDs. (Note there is an informational briefing scheduled on this for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11 (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_progra m)
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Thanks. I will make sure this suggestion is taken into account. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:06 PM To: NA Discuss; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris Hi Beau, I would appreciate a return to the theme of accountability. It would be appreciated if the ALAC could formulate a Statement regarding the document entitled, "Next steps in continuous improvement of ICANN dispute resolution and Board processes" -- see http://www.icann.org/transparency/next-steps-dispute-resolution-11jan08. pdf thanks, Danny --- On Tue, 6/10/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 2:53 PM Greetings, all. As discussed in the call this week, I'm asking for any
specific comments or concerns you may have, regarding the issues in which I have some involvement coming up in Paris. Anything you want me
to say? In other words.
1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") This is not a perfect choice of background but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly).
2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting,
more like hors d'oeuvres.
3. New gTLDs. (Note there is an informational briefing scheduled on this for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11 (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_prog ra m)
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com *** Scanned
Danny, Indeed an interesting document. Mainly the elaboration on the way how 'to remove all Board members from their positions'. The example of a 'clearly unethical decision that constitutes "misbehavior"' could be the approval of the Verisign COM agreement. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:10 PM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris Thanks. I will make sure this suggestion is taken into account. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:06 PM To: NA Discuss; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris Hi Beau, I would appreciate a return to the theme of accountability. It would be appreciated if the ALAC could formulate a Statement regarding the document entitled, "Next steps in continuous improvement of ICANN dispute resolution and Board processes" -- see http://www.icann.org/transparency/next-steps-dispute-resolution-11jan08. pdf thanks, Danny --- On Tue, 6/10/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 2:53 PM Greetings, all. As discussed in the call this week, I'm asking for any
specific comments or concerns you may have, regarding the issues in which I have some involvement coming up in Paris. Anything you want me
to say? In other words.
1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") This is not a perfect choice of background but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly).
2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting,
more like hors d'oeuvres.
3. New gTLDs. (Note there is an informational briefing scheduled on this for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11 (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_prog ra m)
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com *** Scanned ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Just like Beau - I'm be keen to hear from users, ALS's and others in North America so that your comments and ideas can be brought to the attention both of ALAC, but also ICANN as a whole. i'll review the comments posted on here so far, and post daily updates prior to the meeting, and during the meeting @ http://twitter.com/netfreedom rgs Robert On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
Greetings, all. As discussed in the call this week, I'm asking for any specific comments or concerns you may have, regarding the issues in which I have some involvement coming up in Paris. Anything you want me to say? In other words.
1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") This is not a perfect choice of background but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly).
2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting, more like hors d'oeuvres.
3. New gTLDs. (Note there is an informational briefing scheduled on this for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11 (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_progra m)
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") Having brought Stacy Burnette into May conference call was useful, but I still find myself asking; what is the value of expending significant effort on RAA reform when even the existing provisions are not enforced?
I suspect -- though others here with more background can confirm or deny -- that proper enforcement of the existing RAA would solve many problems. I found Stacy's response to Danny's last emailed question ... unsatisfying. I would also have thought that the registrars constituency would have been eager to encourage identification and proper handling of the "bad apples", though this seems not to be the case. I would like to see our region have a game plan going into Paris to push, both administratively and politically, for expedited increases in enforcement action. All the best-intentioned policies in the world are useless if the commercial-service constituents of ICANN can ignore them at will with little consequence. So it would strike me that effective enforcement is a necessary _pre-requisite_ of good policy making. What I don't know are the proper channels through which to assert this if we're not just doing this through ALAC.
2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting, more like hors d'oeuvres.
Maybe this is not a meeting topic, but I am increasingly becoming aware that the GAC -- although, like ALAC has no direct Board seat, wields enormous power within ICANN. I would appreciate if some people here with some background could confirms or deny, and offer opinions on the organizational differences between the two advisory groups. Perhaps such information may be helpful in our meeting ... even if informal.
- Evan
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Maybe this is not a meeting topic, but I am increasingly becoming aware that the GAC -- although, like ALAC has no direct Board seat, wields enormous power within ICANN. I would appreciate if some people here with some background could confirms or deny, and offer opinions on the organizational differences between the two advisory groups. Perhaps such information may be helpful in our meeting ... even if informal.
yes, the GAC is very powerful without any voting Board seat. And one of the reasons that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary to have a voting seat to have influence. I think that there's a concept that the vote means something in and of itself - honestly, if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, and have no influence! Whereas as you see with the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can persuade the people who have votes to vote your way. But anyway IMO it's a combination of things - Governments intrinsically have a lot of power/respect from people (yes, I know there are many that may not deserve such, but the fact of their being a Government carries with it a certain power) ; the Government representatives to ICANN so far are seen by many as being quality persons (Janis, Sharil, Bertrand etc); the GAC picks its areas of focus and issues its communique at the end of each ICANN meeting (predictable timing, weighty statement); it stands together in public, so that even if there are bitter disagreements in private, when the statement comes out, it's a GAC statement, supported by the Governments. Organisationally, the GAC both benefits from and loses from the Government protocols to which it is subject - they can't move quickly to a final decision as home offices must often sign off on issues that may be controversial, they have a lot of work to do to get to a position On the other hand, they are very experienced in negotiation to a relatively win-win position for the group (diplomats...); they all subscribe to and follow GAC rules for statements, discussion and negotiation to get to those statements, etc. ALAC is both new and old, it has huge baggage from the past experiments, it does not have a common purpose, and obviously not a common position. One big problem with getting respect is that the At Large itself cuts down the ALAC. It is rare for the ALAC to discuss and come out with a position without the proponents of the unsuccessful position immediately, publicly and in some cases viciously tearing it down. There are also many At Large members who disagree with the mandate of the ALAC as stated in the bylaws, and often derail or divert discussion, shown on the public lists, and this can turn off a lot of potential contributors who aren't comfortable with the level of the discussion. IMO, this does not build respect for the group as a whole. It makes it difficult for people unaccustomed to the rough and tumble of CS as displayed by the At Large to imagine that anything useful could come out of such chaos, and as such to discount it reflexively. There are many At Large members whose behaviour can be considered on one hand extremely passionate, and on the other hand, extremely rude and offensive. It depends on culture and experiences etc. We've had these discussion both on and off list, and there are many people who are offended by the way in which discussion takes place in the At Large. If we offend them, how can we easily persuade them to support our position? Vote or no vote? And of course, the fact that the At Large hasn't put out many substantive statements since the RALO formation (despite quite a few in the pre-RALO and RALO building periods) - I know it's because the RALO's aren't yet supported to be able to provide timely input (translations etc) - but it adds to the perception. Just a few thoughts - hope they help Jacqueline
Jacque, Evan, and all, The obvious problems with the seemingly increasing complex organization structure of the ALAC, and the RALO's as well as the differences between the them is now, and continues to lead to gross misunderstanding and will continue to do so as Wendy and Danny have frequently elaborated upon in various discussions on the reletive forums associated. So I fully agree with Evan on that score, but would suggest that simplification, transparency, accountability, and openness will go far to improving this now growing and unecessarly complex organizational and operational structure problems I also fully agree with Jacque's concerns and would expand on her concern in that if any and all users cannot have a voice and vote on all issues introduced, able to introduce new or developing concerns that may not be obviously recognized, the mission of ICANN via the ALAC or the RALO's cannot ever be fulfilled. "Jacqueline A. Morris" wrote:
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Maybe this is not a meeting topic, but I am increasingly becoming aware that the GAC -- although, like ALAC has no direct Board seat, wields enormous power within ICANN. I would appreciate if some people here with some background could confirms or deny, and offer opinions on the organizational differences between the two advisory groups. Perhaps such information may be helpful in our meeting ... even if informal.
yes, the GAC is very powerful without any voting Board seat. And one of the reasons that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary to have a voting seat to have influence. I think that there's a concept that the vote means something in and of itself - honestly, if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, and have no influence! Whereas as you see with the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can persuade the people who have votes to vote your way. But anyway IMO it's a combination of things - Governments intrinsically have a lot of power/respect from people (yes, I know there are many that may not deserve such, but the fact of their being a Government carries with it a certain power) ; the Government representatives to ICANN so far are seen by many as being quality persons (Janis, Sharil, Bertrand etc); the GAC picks its areas of focus and issues its communique at the end of each ICANN meeting (predictable timing, weighty statement); it stands together in public, so that even if there are bitter disagreements in private, when the statement comes out, it's a GAC statement, supported by the Governments.
Organisationally, the GAC both benefits from and loses from the Government protocols to which it is subject - they can't move quickly to a final decision as home offices must often sign off on issues that may be controversial, they have a lot of work to do to get to a position On the other hand, they are very experienced in negotiation to a relatively win-win position for the group (diplomats...); they all subscribe to and follow GAC rules for statements, discussion and negotiation to get to those statements, etc.
ALAC is both new and old, it has huge baggage from the past experiments, it does not have a common purpose, and obviously not a common position. One big problem with getting respect is that the At Large itself cuts down the ALAC. It is rare for the ALAC to discuss and come out with a position without the proponents of the unsuccessful position immediately, publicly and in some cases viciously tearing it down. There are also many At Large members who disagree with the mandate of the ALAC as stated in the bylaws, and often derail or divert discussion, shown on the public lists, and this can turn off a lot of potential contributors who aren't comfortable with the level of the discussion. IMO, this does not build respect for the group as a whole. It makes it difficult for people unaccustomed to the rough and tumble of CS as displayed by the At Large to imagine that anything useful could come out of such chaos, and as such to discount it reflexively. There are many At Large members whose behaviour can be considered on one hand extremely passionate, and on the other hand, extremely rude and offensive. It depends on culture and experiences etc. We've had these discussion both on and off list, and there are many people who are offended by the way in which discussion takes place in the At Large. If we offend them, how can we easily persuade them to support our position? Vote or no vote?
And of course, the fact that the At Large hasn't put out many substantive statements since the RALO formation (despite quite a few in the pre-RALO and RALO building periods) - I know it's because the RALO's aren't yet supported to be able to provide timely input (translations etc) - but it adds to the perception.
Just a few thoughts - hope they help Jacqueline
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:03 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris
Jacqueline Morris wrote:
yes, the GAC is very powerful without any voting Board seat. And one of the reasons that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary to have a voting seat to have influence. I think that there's a concept that the vote means something in and of itself - honestly, if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, and have no influence! Whereas as you see with the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can persuade the people who have votes to vote your way.
Jacqueline, do you mean this seriously or is this just a joke? The GAC as an official governmental body and as such IMHO it has by its nature an exclusively unique status within ICANN. If At-Large had 40% of the Board seats and still lost every vote then it would be solely the problem of At-Large from which it could still recover after making some necessary internal changes. Without any seat At-Large can be doing its best and there is no guarantee to achieve anything, that is a second-class status. And what about to cancel all biased seats so that all the bodies are given the same chance to persuade an independent group of people with voting right. And what are the biased seats? The seats that, for instance, voted for the Verisign agreement, or for the degradation of the At-Large status to a second-class advisory body. A bit shocking for me, Jacqueline Dominik
Commenting on the draft ALAC review, i think would be strategic. On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:03 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris
Jacqueline Morris wrote:
yes, the GAC is very powerful without any voting Board seat. And one of the reasons that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary to have a voting seat to have influence. I think that there's a concept that the vote means something in and of itself - honestly, if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, and have no influence! Whereas as you see with the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can persuade the people who have votes to vote your way.
Jacqueline, do you mean this seriously or is this just a joke? The GAC as an official governmental body and as such IMHO it has by its nature an exclusively unique status within ICANN. If At-Large had 40% of the Board seats and still lost every vote then it would be solely the problem of At-Large from which it could still recover after making some necessary internal changes. Without any seat At-Large can be doing its best and there is no guarantee to achieve anything, that is a second-class status.
And what about to cancel all biased seats so that all the bodies are given the same chance to persuade an independent group of people with voting right. And what are the biased seats? The seats that, for instance, voted for the Verisign agreement, or for the degradation of the At-Large status to a second-class advisory body.
A bit shocking for me, Jacqueline
Dominik
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I suspect -- though others here with more background can confirm or deny -- that proper enforcement of the existing RAA would solve many problems. I found Stacy's response to Danny's last emailed question ...
Completely agree.
that the GAC -- although, like ALAC has no direct Board seat, wields enormous power within ICANN. I would appreciate if some people here with some background could confirms or deny, and offer opinions on the organizational differences between the two advisory groups.
They represent organizations with the ability to deliver thermonuclear warheads. We don't. R's, John
participants (8)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Dominik Filipp -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
John Levine -
Robert Guerra