From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 13:34:52 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:34:52 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Dear people, I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html The panel in question is the following: --------------------------- [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session chair) Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the UN's Internet Governance Forum --------------------------- The full program can be retrieved here: http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? I understand it should be a person who is closely following/participating in the international IG debate from civil society's perspective. Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) []s fraternos --c.a. From gpaque at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 14:11:23 2011 From: gpaque at GMAIL.COM (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:41:23 -0430 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D6CF07B.3060900@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 14:29:02 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CF07B.3060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, Carlos & Ginger. Several of the "good" people as alluded to actually sit on the GAC (Jayanatha, Alice et al) and are working on the Increasing Opportunities for All new (gTLDs) in the current GAC-Board discussions. However, (1) it is unlikely that they will arrive in time for March 11 and (2) if they do, GAC Meetings are already being planned for this period. Noting that this is an NCUC discussion, but also noting that GAC members wear many hats (e.g. Alice) I can volunteer to poll the developing country members of the GAC who are involved in this issue broadly to see (1) there is interest and (2) if they will or can arrive in San Francisco by 10 March. Is there support for this proposal? Rgds, Tracy On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree with Carlos Afonso here. The lack of balance in a session can > detract seriously from an otherwise excellent panel (I speak from > experience). It makes sense for all of us to try to make sure this panel > represents both sides evenly, to take advantage of the expertise and > experience already represented. > > I echo Carlos' question: who will be there that can assist, if the > organizers agree? > > Gracias... gp > > * > **Ginger (Virginia) Paque > *IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo...* > > > > > > On 3/1/2011 8:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 14:43:43 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:43:43 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6CF80F.2050503@cafonso.ca> OK with me. --c.a. On 03/01/2011 10:29 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Agreed, Carlos & Ginger. > > Several of the "good" people as alluded to actually sit on the GAC > (Jayanatha, Alice et al) and are working on the Increasing Opportunities for > All new (gTLDs) in the current GAC-Board discussions. > > However, (1) it is unlikely that they will arrive in time for March 11 and > (2) if they do, GAC Meetings are already being planned for this period. > > Noting that this is an NCUC discussion, but also noting that GAC members > wear many hats (e.g. Alice) I can volunteer to poll the developing country > members of the GAC who are involved in this issue broadly to see (1) there > is interest and (2) if they will or can arrive in San Francisco by 10 March. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> I agree with Carlos Afonso here. The lack of balance in a session can >> detract seriously from an otherwise excellent panel (I speak from >> experience). It makes sense for all of us to try to make sure this panel >> represents both sides evenly, to take advantage of the expertise and >> experience already represented. >> >> I echo Carlos' question: who will be there that can assist, if the >> organizers agree? >> >> Gracias... gp >> >> * >> **Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> *IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/1/2011 8:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear people, >> >> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >> >> The panel in question is the following: >> >> --------------------------- >> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >> >> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >> chair) >> Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >> UN's Internet Governance Forum >> --------------------------- >> >> The full program can be retrieved here: >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >> >> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >> March 11th? >> >> I understand it should be a person who is closely >> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >> society's perspective. >> >> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >> >> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >> >> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> > From nhklein at GMX.NET Tue Mar 1 15:23:42 2011 From: nhklein at GMX.NET (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:23:42 +0700 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D6D016E.5050204@gmx.net> "To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the participation of developing country stakeholders?" - ICANN has not. I would not know easily identifiable examples. The closes I can think of is - by implication - "geographical diversity" rules. But these too do not apply on every aspect of ICANN's work. When it comes to the use of languages - if you are in a part oft the world where the language is NOT English (or, in some cases French or Spanish), it is difficult even to share some of ICANN's hot topics, because they are formulated in quite a different context. - I am not pleading that everything should be translated into every language. But the way in which discussions develop should consider the wider context - including "far away" countries - that is far away form the sophisticated environments where ICANN mostly acts. One example: When the discussion was going on in recent weeks about the possible membership in NCSG-NCUC of an organization which has "non profit status" in some countries, but is representing a membership which is to a good extent for-profit, it was almost impossible to explain the case in our context. And this is not for linguistic reasons, but for the general context of refined or simple legal arrangements. I have since a long time given up to explain the development of the several stages of handbook drafts for new TLDs - after starting, the response is quickly: "But this is obviously not for us." Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia On 3/1/2011 7:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance& the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 1 16:05:03 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:05:03 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. i won't even whinge. a. On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 16:10:00 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:10:00 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: but avri, there are so few women on.... can we have a policy that 50% of anything we organize has 50% women? dd On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. > i won't even whinge. > > a. > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > > > The panel in question is the following: > > > > --------------------------- > > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > > chair) > > Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > > UN's Internet Governance Forum > > --------------------------- > > > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > > March 11th? > > > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > > society's perspective. > > > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > participants: > > > > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > > > []s fraternos > > > > --c.a. > > > -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 18:10:34 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:10:34 +0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > I do not know if this is may be any help? but I am typing this message from: http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/features/index.html?propertyID=3000 But I plan to be at the Westin, Union Square on 11th March. kind regards, Alex > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 18:18:33 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:18:33 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6D2A69.5090002@cafonso.ca> One more, one less... no real numeric difference -- but more balanced, is my plea. --c.a. On 03/01/2011 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. > i won't even whinge. > > a. > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >> >> The panel in question is the following: >> >> --------------------------- >> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >> >> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >> chair) >> Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >> UN's Internet Governance Forum >> --------------------------- >> >> The full program can be retrieved here: >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >> >> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >> March 11th? >> >> I understand it should be a person who is closely >> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >> society's perspective. >> >> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >> >> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: >> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >> >> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> > From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 18:22:13 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:22:13 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6D2B45.8090005@cafonso.ca> You have my vote! :) --c.a. On 03/01/2011 02:10 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >> >> The panel in question is the following: >> >> --------------------------- >> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >> >> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >> chair) >> Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >> UN's Internet Governance Forum >> --------------------------- >> >> The full program can be retrieved here: >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >> >> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >> March 11th? >> >> I understand it should be a person who is closely >> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >> society's perspective. >> >> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >> > > I do not know if this is may be any help? but I am typing this message > from: > http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/features/index.html?propertyID=3000 > But > I plan to be at the Westin, Union Square on 11th March. > > kind regards, > > Alex > > > > > >> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: >> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >> >> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> > From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Tue Mar 1 18:30:38 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:30:38 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <762F9FEE-5891-442A-8893-92B9BE6EE331@graduateinstitute.ch> Carlos, On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". Again, 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her flight doesn't get in on time. 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs more time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG that's been working on options to help developing country and other resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And the conversations around this with board members and others at the workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al around these issues. > How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to join for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand experience with. > What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good framework for discussion. > If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work let's look at options. > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. Yup > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance would of course be welcome. Best, Bill From tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 18:38:17 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6D2A69.5090002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I will ask the GAC "Developing Countries" members (based on the UN definitions at www.unohrlls.org) for some options/names if there is no objection from the list. Rgds, Tracy On 3/1/11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > One more, one less... no real numeric difference -- but more balanced, > is my plea. > > --c.a. > > On 03/01/2011 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. >> i won't even whinge. >> >> a. >> >> On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >>> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >>> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >>> >>> The panel in question is the following: >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >>> >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >>> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >>> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >>> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >>> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>> >>> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >>> chair) >>> Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >>> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >>> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >>> UN's Internet Governance Forum >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> The full program can be retrieved here: >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >>> >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >>> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >>> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >>> March 11th? >>> >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>> society's perspective. >>> >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >>> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >>> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >>> >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>> participants: >>> >>> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >>> >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >> > -- Sent from my mobile device From kim at VONARX.CA Wed Mar 2 00:55:32 2011 From: kim at VONARX.CA (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:55:32 -0500 Subject: WHOIS RT Mtg Message-ID: Dear All: I am wondering if, during the ICANN mtg, you would like for some of the RT members to join you for a quick discussion on the developments on the WHOIS RT? Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kim at VONARX.CA Wed Mar 2 01:01:16 2011 From: kim at VONARX.CA (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:01:16 -0500 Subject: WHOIS RT audicast link Message-ID: Dear All: I got the audiocast link for the WHOIS RT telephone conference March 2 at 05:00 UTC: http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Wed Mar 2 18:24:36 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:24:36 +0800 Subject: Fwd: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:24 AM +0100 28/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >Any volunteers? We have one open slot. > >I was going to volunteer at one point, but thought we were only >going to suggest 2 people per SG. I will, however, stand aside for >anyone else who wants to volunteer - I have already taken up too >many slots. > >In volunteering, please note that charter requirement is for members >to have the necessary tech experience and that there is an NDA. > >http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-wg-charter-12nov10-en.pdf > I am interested. It looks to me to be very complementary to the SSR Review Team work I am already doing. In any case, Avri, if you are still keen I would happily defer. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 18:43:20 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:43:20 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <762F9FEE-5891-442A-8893-92B9BE6EE331@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917B30@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Why not put Carlos on the panel? > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > William Drake > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > program > > Carlos, > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > > Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > > "developing countries". > > Again, > > 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her > flight doesn't get in on time. > > 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs more > time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in > Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. > > 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need > people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted > > the participation of developing country stakeholders? > > For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at > the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG > that's been working on options to help developing country and other > resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for > new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak > about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions > about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG > meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And > the conversations around this with board members and others at the > workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, > and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al > around these issues. > > > How do developing > > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN > > affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their > > continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental > > body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? > > Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week > in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've > organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to join > for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat > at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the > current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand > experience with. > > > What do these dynamics mean for the > > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 > minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. > So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move > crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in > order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good framework > for discussion. > > > If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from > > the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), > > and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? > > Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work > let's look at options. > > > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > > society's perspective. > > Yup > > > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people > > (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure > > about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of > names. > > > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > participants: > > > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%2 > > 0%0A > > > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be > developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people > who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance > would of course be welcome. > > Best, > > Bill From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 2 19:21:23 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:21:23 +0100 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <65DF923A-52E2-4136-AF9F-3CEF849ECCC3@ltu.se> Hi, I am not keen to add more ICANN work just now. You are welcome to the slot. Any objections to David in the third slot? a. On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:24, David Cake wrote: > At 11:24 AM +0100 28/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Any volunteers? We have one open slot. >> >> I was going to volunteer at one point, but thought we were only going to suggest 2 people per SG. I will, however, stand aside for anyone else who wants to volunteer - I have already taken up too many slots. >> >> In volunteering, please note that charter requirement is for members to have the necessary tech experience and that there is an NDA. >> >> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-wg-charter-12nov10-en.pdf >> > > I am interested. It looks to me to be very complementary to the SSR Review Team work I am already doing. > In any case, Avri, if you are still keen I would happily defer. > Regards > David From wendy at SELTZER.COM Wed Mar 2 20:08:48 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:08:48 -0500 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: <65DF923A-52E2-4136-AF9F-3CEF849ECCC3@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4D6E95C0.9010107@seltzer.com> No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? --Wendy On 03/02/2011 01:21 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not keen to add more ICANN work just now. > > You are welcome to the slot. > > Any objections to David in the third slot? > > a. > > > > On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:24, David Cake wrote: > >> At 11:24 AM +0100 28/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Any volunteers? We have one open slot. >>> >>> I was going to volunteer at one point, but thought we were only going to suggest 2 people per SG. I will, however, stand aside for anyone else who wants to volunteer - I have already taken up too many slots. >>> >>> In volunteering, please note that charter requirement is for members to have the necessary tech experience and that there is an NDA. >>> >>> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-wg-charter-12nov10-en.pdf >>> >> >> I am interested. It looks to me to be very complementary to the SSR Review Team work I am already doing. >> In any case, Avri, if you are still keen I would happily defer. >> Regards >> David > > From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 20:40:01 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:40:01 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DDC2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> please do that, Tracy. ________________________________________ From: NCSG-NCUC [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google [tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:38 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event program I will ask the GAC "Developing Countries" members (based on the UN definitions at www.unohrlls.org) for some options/names if there is no objection from the list. Rgds, Tracy On 3/1/11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > One more, one less... no real numeric difference -- but more balanced, > is my plea. > > --c.a. > > On 03/01/2011 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. >> i won't even whinge. >> >> a. >> >> On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >>> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >>> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >>> >>> The panel in question is the following: >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >>> >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >>> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >>> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >>> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >>> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>> >>> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >>> chair) >>> Avri Doria, Lule? University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >>> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >>> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >>> UN's Internet Governance Forum >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> The full program can be retrieved here: >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >>> >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >>> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >>> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >>> March 11th? >>> >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>> society's perspective. >>> >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >>> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >>> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >>> >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>> participants: >>> >>> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >>> >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >> > -- Sent from my mobile device From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 20:40:36 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:40:36 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DDC3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Joly: I didn't ask for a transcript. I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill? --MM ________________________________________ From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now scribe notes: http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for > about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression > was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of > relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating > debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not > contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not > pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem > of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain ?concerns.? But that > was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you > saw/heard/thought. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 2 21:32:50 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:32:50 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DDC3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20436C77-7B76-48C2-BA58-CB002A60EF07@ltu.se> hi, i know you guys did not send me, but i will work up an impressions report in the next day or so for blog and for those who did send me. It went until this morning, and to be honest, I am still working on understanding. quick impressions: board asserted itself gac asserted itself. for the most part it was good natured. though GAC did start by threatening and every once in a while, when they felt it slipping, threatened again. and the Board pretty much contained their frustration. most of the time. they, as groups, obviously don't have the hang of multistakeholder discussion yet, but were working on it, and some of them do have experience. but i think GAC will accept even losing some of their points if they really feel that due diligence has been done and there was a real consideration of their points. not all of them of course. there will be be spoiled sports or both siders. and some of the points are more qualifications and areas where they do not understand how the mechanisms are supposed to work. or maybe they don't believe the mechanism don't work. i am hoping the Board will have a coherent response to the scorecard in the next few days. i am not going to cull it from the transcript but this morning and yesterday afternoon was the scorecard response. a. On 2 Mar 2011, at 20:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Joly: > I didn't ask for a transcript. > I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill? > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now > > scribe notes: > > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for >> about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression >> was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of >> relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating >> debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not >> contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not >> pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem >> of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain ?concerns.? But that >> was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you >> saw/heard/thought. >> >> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Wed Mar 2 21:58:51 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:58:51 -0800 Subject: ICANN Board Submits Preliminary Answers to GAC's Scorecard on Trademarks Message-ID: Konstantinos has published an excellent analysis of the Board's response to GAC on the trademark issues. See: http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/03/the-icann-board-submits-preliminary-answers-to-gacs-scorecard-on-trademarks.html While the board said it wouldn't expand trademark rights - and that is good news - it also is willing to give the IP industry a major concession by providing for the transfer of a domain name upon a successful URS action. The community's compromise was to provide for the SUSPENSION of a domain name, but not its transfer. This was an important premise that much of the negotiated compromises were built upon, so changing this plank is a major concern. And I also agree that the board's willingness to treat a default as bad faith is troubling. Any news on what happened with the MAPO/MOPO "sensitive" strings issue? Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Wed Mar 2 22:34:54 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:34:54 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <20436C77-7B76-48C2-BA58-CB002A60EF07@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4D6E71AE0200005B00068FE2@mail.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Avri - I think we will all be looking forward to the eyewitness account, especially as going through the transcript is pretty painful and takes a looooong time :( My impression of the initial Rec 6 discussion was that (according to Suzanne Sene) the GAC is requesting that it be exempt from the Limited Public Interest Objection Procedure. I'd be curious to know how that would work and what the consequent discussions were like. Cheers, and thanks again to you, Bill, Rudi and whoever else could make it to Brussels, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/2/2011 3:37 PM Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now hi, i know you guys did not send me, but i will work up an impressions report in the next day or so for blog and for those who did send me. It went until this morning, and to be honest, I am still working on understanding. quick impressions: board asserted itself gac asserted itself. for the most part it was good natured. though GAC did start by threatening and every once in a while, when they felt it slipping, threatened again. and the Board pretty much contained their frustration. most of the time. they, as groups, obviously don't have the hang of multistakeholder discussion yet, but were working on it, and some of them do have experience. but i think GAC will accept even losing some of their points if they really feel that due diligence has been done and there was a real consideration of their points. not all of them of course. there will be be spoiled sports or both siders. and some of the points are more qualifications and areas where they do not understand how the mechanisms are supposed to work. or maybe they don't believe the mechanism don't work. i am hoping the Board will have a coherent response to the scorecard in the next few days. i am not going to cull it from the transcript but this morning and yesterday afternoon was the scorecard response. a. On 2 Mar 2011, at 20:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Joly: > I didn't ask for a transcript. > I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill? > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now > > scribe notes: > > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for >> about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression >> was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of >> relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating >> debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not >> contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not >> pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem >> of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain ?concerns.? But that >> was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you >> saw/heard/thought. >> >> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 2 22:41:21 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:41:21 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917B30@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6EB981.7000808@cafonso.ca> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I understand, will be in San Fran on time. --c.a. On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of >> William Drake >> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event >> program >> >> Carlos, >> >> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> >> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. >> >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>> "developing countries". >> >> Again, >> >> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her >> flight doesn't get in on time. >> >> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs more >> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in >> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. >> >> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need >> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: >> >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted >>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? >> >> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at >> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG >> that's been working on options to help developing country and other >> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for >> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak >> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions >> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG >> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And >> the conversations around this with board members and others at the >> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, >> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al >> around these issues. >> >>> How do developing >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN >>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their >>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental >>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? >> >> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week >> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've >> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to join >> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat >> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the >> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand >> experience with. >> >>> What do these dynamics mean for the >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 >> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. >> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move >> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in >> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good framework >> for discussion. >> >>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from >>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), >>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? >> >> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work >> let's look at options. >>> >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>> society's perspective. >> >> Yup >>> >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people >>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure >>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of >> names. >>> >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >> participants: >>> >>> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%2 >>> 0%0A >>> >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be >> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people >> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance >> would of course be welcome. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill > From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 23:40:39 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:40:39 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6EB981.7000808@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409798FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program > > No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > understand, will be in San Fran on time. > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On > Behalf Of > >> William Drake > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM > >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > >> program > >> > >> Carlos, > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> > >>> Dear people, > >>> > >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > >> > >> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > >> > >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > >>> "developing countries". > >> > >> Again, > >> > >> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her > >> flight doesn't get in on time. > >> > >> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs > more > >> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in > >> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. > >> > >> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need > >> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > >> > >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and > promoted > >>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? > >> > >> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at > >> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG > >> that's been working on options to help developing country and other > >> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for > >> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak > >> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions > >> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG > >> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And > >> the conversations around this with board members and others at the > >> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, > >> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al > >> around these issues. > >> > >>> How do developing > >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN > >>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their > >>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental > >>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? > >> > >> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week > >> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've > >> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to > join > >> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat > >> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the > >> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand > >> experience with. > >> > >>> What do these dynamics mean for the > >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > >> > >> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 > >> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. > >> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move > >> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in > >> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good > framework > >> for discussion. > >> > >>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from > >>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), > >>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? > >> > >> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work > >> let's look at options. > >>> > >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely > >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > >>> society's perspective. > >> > >> Yup > >>> > >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people > >>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure > >>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of > >> names. > >>> > >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > >> participants: > >>> > >>> > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 > 0%2 > >>> 0%0A > >>> > >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > >> > >> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be > >> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people > >> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance > >> would of course be welcome. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > > From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 2 23:42:02 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:42:02 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <4D6E71AE0200005B00068FE2@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <7CC23090-EC77-4B4D-B6EF-7C655AA8635D@ltu.se> On 2 Mar 2011, at 22:34, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > I think we will all be looking forward to the eyewitness account, especially as going through the transcript is pretty painful and takes a looooong time :( > fyi, i am not writing anything without reviewing the transcript first - no matter how long it is - though the responses from the board to the scorecard are relatively short. maybe 2-3 hours worth of transcript yesterday afternoon and this morning. being an eyewitness is great for judging the mood and the dynamics of the room - that is what you can't get from a transcript of even an audiocast. but to make sure i understood what was said, i will not rely on my memory alone. that is one reason why i have not written my impression of mapo etc.. so yeah, it is long to read it, and that is why my 'substantive report' isn't done yet. but i have a looooong plane ride tomorrow. a. From ca at CAFONSO.CA Thu Mar 3 03:14:26 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:14:26 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409798FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6EF982.3030006@cafonso.ca> Good suggestions as well. I did not find their names in the registration list though (as of March 01). --c.a. On 03/02/2011 07:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? > They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program >> >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Why not put Carlos on the panel? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On >> Behalf Of >>>> William Drake >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM >>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event >>>> program >>>> >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>>> >>>> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. >>>> >>>>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>>>> "developing countries". >>>> >>>> Again, >>>> >>>> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her >>>> flight doesn't get in on time. >>>> >>>> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs >> more >>>> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in >>>> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. >>>> >>>> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need >>>> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: >>>> >>>>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and >> promoted >>>>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? >>>> >>>> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at >>>> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG >>>> that's been working on options to help developing country and other >>>> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for >>>> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak >>>> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions >>>> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG >>>> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And >>>> the conversations around this with board members and others at the >>>> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, >>>> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al >>>> around these issues. >>>> >>>>> How do developing >>>>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN >>>>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their >>>>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental >>>>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? >>>> >>>> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week >>>> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've >>>> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to >> join >>>> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat >>>> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the >>>> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand >>>> experience with. >>>> >>>>> What do these dynamics mean for the >>>>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>>> >>>> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 >>>> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. >>>> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move >>>> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in >>>> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good >> framework >>>> for discussion. >>>> >>>>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from >>>>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), >>>>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? >>>> >>>> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work >>>> let's look at options. >>>>> >>>>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>>>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>>>> society's perspective. >>>> >>>> Yup >>>>> >>>>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>>>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people >>>>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure >>>>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of >>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>>> participants: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 >> 0%2 >>>>> 0%0A >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>>> >>>> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be >>>> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people >>>> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance >>>> would of course be welcome. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>> > From ca at CAFONSO.CA Thu Mar 3 03:21:01 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:21:01 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409798FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6EFB0D.6070407@cafonso.ca> BTW, have you noticed how precarious the ICANN registration system is? There are 68 participants listed as from Afghanistan! All those who did not choose their country of origin became Afghan nationals! I wonder what the NSA + DHS will make of this... :) --c.a. On 03/02/2011 07:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? > They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program >> >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Why not put Carlos on the panel? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On >> Behalf Of >>>> William Drake >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM >>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event >>>> program >>>> >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>>> >>>> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. >>>> >>>>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>>>> "developing countries". >>>> >>>> Again, >>>> >>>> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her >>>> flight doesn't get in on time. >>>> >>>> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs >> more >>>> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in >>>> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. >>>> >>>> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need >>>> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: >>>> >>>>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and >> promoted >>>>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? >>>> >>>> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at >>>> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG >>>> that's been working on options to help developing country and other >>>> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for >>>> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak >>>> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions >>>> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG >>>> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And >>>> the conversations around this with board members and others at the >>>> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, >>>> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al >>>> around these issues. >>>> >>>>> How do developing >>>>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN >>>>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their >>>>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental >>>>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? >>>> >>>> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week >>>> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've >>>> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to >> join >>>> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat >>>> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the >>>> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand >>>> experience with. >>>> >>>>> What do these dynamics mean for the >>>>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>>> >>>> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 >>>> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. >>>> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move >>>> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in >>>> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good >> framework >>>> for discussion. >>>> >>>>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from >>>>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), >>>>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? >>>> >>>> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work >>>> let's look at options. >>>>> >>>>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>>>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>>>> society's perspective. >>>> >>>> Yup >>>>> >>>>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>>>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people >>>>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure >>>>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of >>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>>> participants: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 >> 0%2 >>>>> 0%0A >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>>> >>>> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be >>>> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people >>>> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance >>>> would of course be welcome. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>> > From avri at LTU.SE Thu Mar 3 06:01:13 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:01:13 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <7CC23090-EC77-4B4D-B6EF-7C655AA8635D@ltu.se> Message-ID: <9075CF33-B46F-497D-8644-22C270A216FC@ltu.se> In the meantime, Kieren did an annotated version. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/02/transcript-icann-gac-board From naveedpta at HOTMAIL.COM Thu Mar 3 06:54:58 2011 From: naveedpta at HOTMAIL.COM (Naveed haq) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 05:54:58 +0000 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6EF982.3030006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This would be an interesting and important session for people like us from developing side of the world. Feel bad while missing since i will be arriving on 12th. Hope to catch up the discussions during the meeting breaks. Best of luck to the participants and organizers. Best Regards, Naveed-ul-Haq Assistant Director (ICT) Pakistan Telecom Authority Headquarters F-5/1, Islamabad Ph. +92-51-9203911 Fax. +92-51-2878124 Mob. +92-342-5554444 > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:14:26 -0300 > From: ca at CAFONSO.CA > Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Good suggestions as well. I did not find their names in the registration > list though (as of March 01). > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 07:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? > > They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM > >> To: Milton L Mueller > >> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >> Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program > >> > >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> Why not put Carlos on the panel? > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On > >> Behalf Of > >>>> William Drake > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM > >>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > >>>> program > >>>> > >>>> Carlos, > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Dear people, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > >>>> > >>>> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > >>>> > >>>>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > >>>>> "developing countries". > >>>> > >>>> Again, > >>>> > >>>> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her > >>>> flight doesn't get in on time. > >>>> > >>>> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs > >> more > >>>> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in > >>>> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. > >>>> > >>>> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need > >>>> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > >>>> > >>>>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and > >> promoted > >>>>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? > >>>> > >>>> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at > >>>> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG > >>>> that's been working on options to help developing country and other > >>>> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for > >>>> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak > >>>> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions > >>>> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG > >>>> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And > >>>> the conversations around this with board members and others at the > >>>> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, > >>>> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al > >>>> around these issues. > >>>> > >>>>> How do developing > >>>>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN > >>>>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their > >>>>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental > >>>>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? > >>>> > >>>> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week > >>>> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've > >>>> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to > >> join > >>>> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat > >>>> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the > >>>> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand > >>>> experience with. > >>>> > >>>>> What do these dynamics mean for the > >>>>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > >>>> > >>>> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 > >>>> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. > >>>> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move > >>>> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in > >>>> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good > >> framework > >>>> for discussion. > >>>> > >>>>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from > >>>>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), > >>>>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work > >>>> let's look at options. > >>>>> > >>>>> I understand it should be a person who is closely > >>>>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > >>>>> society's perspective. > >>>> > >>>> Yup > >>>>> > >>>>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > >>>>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people > >>>>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure > >>>>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of > >>>> names. > >>>>> > >>>>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > >>>> participants: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 > >> 0%2 > >>>>> 0%0A > >>>>> > >>>>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > >>>> > >>>> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be > >>>> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people > >>>> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance > >>>> would of course be welcome. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Thu Mar 3 11:20:06 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 18:20:06 +0800 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: <4D6E95C0.9010107@seltzer.com> Message-ID: At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. Regards David From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Thu Mar 3 16:31:43 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:31:43 -0500 Subject: Women involved in the DNS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6F6E0F0200005B000690B6@mail.law.unh.edu> Karla Valente (ICANN Staff) organizes a "Women in the DNS" breakfast meeting at most ICANN meetings. The SF one will take place on Monday 14 March at 7 a.m. in the venue hotel (Westin St Francis) - I've attended a couple in the past and found them useful and a good way to meet other women working on DNS issues (from business managers to technical folks). Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: David Cake To: Date: 3/3/2011 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rossella.mattioli at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 3 17:52:38 2011 From: rossella.mattioli at GMAIL.COM (Rossella Mattioli) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:52:38 +0100 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to be more involved in DNS security and stability and if not for this round, I am available for future involvements. My name is Rossella Mattioli and I am in the first year of a Master's degree in Cyber Security, a program unique in Europe run jointly by the Tallinn University of Technology and Tartu University in Estonia. The Cyber Security Master's program covers technical, organizational and managerial aspects of Cyber Security, with lecturers from Critical Emergency Readiness Teams and Financial Institutions throughout Europe as well as the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. I've been interested in the Internet and Cybersecurity for well over a decade and through the length of my professional career. In 2001 I began working as an Intranet Manager for Credem, one of the largest financial groups in Italy. At Credem, I defined policies for whole virtual workspace, managing 240 publishers, 24 communities and over 6,000 employees. This work helped me develop experience in network governance and online community management, while guiding me towards my current academic interest in the fundamentals of Internet governance, security and stability. For these reasons in 2010, after I graduated with a thesis about Internet Governance and Security issues, I relocated in Estonia. Cheers, Rossella Il giorno 03/mar/2011, alle ore 11.20, David Cake ha scritto: > At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >> who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? > > I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. > Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm > (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. > Regards > David From ruvakubusa at YAHOO.FR Thu Mar 3 17:02:29 2011 From: ruvakubusa at YAHOO.FR (LILIANE RUVAKUBUSA) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:02:29 +0000 Subject: Women involved in the DNS In-Reply-To: <4D6F6E0F0200005B000690B6@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <145616.55520.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear All, ? I'm a Burundian women, member of the noncommercial stakeholder group, I'm a IT Expert in Burundi, our agency wants to create telecenters in provinces to bring the digital society in rural areas. But, I have not yet participate in any of the ICANN meetings, may be the opportunity will come, regards Liliane Ruvakubusa GIDA'Representative(Global and Integrated Development Agency) ruvakubusa at yahoo.fr Mobile +257 77 748 211 ou + 257 22 25 60 77 --- On Thu, 3/3/11, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU wrote: From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Subject: Re: Women involved in the DNS To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011, 5:31 PM Karla Valente (ICANN Staff) organizes a "Women in the DNS" breakfast meeting at most ICANN meetings. The SF one will take place on Monday 14 March at 7 a.m. in the venue hotel (Westin St Francis) - I've attended a couple in the past and found them useful and a good way to meet other women working on DNS issues (from?business managers?to technical folks). ? Cheers Mary ? Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings?available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: David Cake To: Date: 3/3/2011 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA? list of GNSO volunteersAt 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Fri Mar 4 05:58:57 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 07:58:57 +0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6EB981.7000808@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I think Milton is right, somebody more attuned with the issues would be a better panelist than me. For the last 3 weeks I have been submerged in some outside-of-ICANN work thus another person would be more resourceful. Thanks, Alex. On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > understand, will be in San Fran on time. > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 4 14:14:06 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:14:06 +0100 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: St?phane Van Gelder > Date: March 4, 2011 2:01:07 PM GMT+01:00 > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional > > Councillors, > > FYI, please find attached the GAC communiqu? from the Brussels meeting. > > St?phane > >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56570 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 4 14:37:27 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:37:27 -0500 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <741EDD09-99E4-4C2E-93D8-E881B0B443EA@ltu.se> Thanks for forwarding that; Two lines that stick out for me: > Given that there appear to be a number of issues where the Board and the GAC still > need to agree a common approach ... > While fully respecting the Board's right not to accept GAC advice, the GAC is > obliged to ensure that existing rights, the rule of law and the security and protection of > citizens, consumers and businesses, and the principle of national sovereignty for > governments are all maintained within the new environment, as well as respect for > legitimate interests and sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, > geographic and religious significance. The GAC is committed to taking whatever time > is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives. a. On 4 Mar 2011, at 08:14, William Drake wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: St?phane Van Gelder >> Date: March 4, 2011 2:01:07 PM GMT+01:00 >> To: GNSO Council List >> Subject: [council] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional >> >> Councillors, >> >> FYI, please find attached the GAC communiqu? from the Brussels meeting. >> >> St?phane >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> > From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Fri Mar 4 15:26:13 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:26:13 +0900 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: <741EDD09-99E4-4C2E-93D8-E881B0B443EA@ltu.se> Message-ID: <201103041426.p24EQD3d004439@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> > Thanks for forwarding that; > > Two lines that stick out for me: > > > Given that there appear to be a number of issues where the Board and the GAC still > > need to agree a common approach > > ... > > > While fully respecting the Board's right not to accept GAC advice, the GAC is > > obliged to ensure that existing rights, the rule of law and the security and protection of > > citizens, consumers and businesses, and the principle of national sovereignty for > > governments are all maintained within the new environment, as well as respect for > > legitimate interests and sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, > > geographic and religious significance. The GAC is committed to taking whatever time > > is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives. And as soon as all the members of GAC can achieve complete consensus on all these issues and agree and implement treaties, I'm sure that ICANN will happily comply with such new international laws. Until that time, the bottom-up stakeholder approach ICANN's system supposedly embraces provides the only sensible way forward for balancing the needs of the entire connected (and potentially connected) world. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 4 15:49:38 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:49:38 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917ACA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Would appreciate a report on your impressions. Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and systematic report. But hopefully it?s useful nonetheless, and Avri and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN should be providing a report with the board?s assessment of the current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. Before the meeting, the GAC provided a ?scorecard? (a somewhat revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on which it was at odds with ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The scorecard built on the GAC?s Cartagena communiqu? and new member inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be addressed by a ?bylaws consultation? in SF. There the board could formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its decisions. From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems became evident: First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in ?the community? were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing ?advice? on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn?t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn?t have been allowed to fester. Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn?t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it?s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous ?good people? in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can?t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn?t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official ?bylaws consultation? in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn?t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn?t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let?s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that ?community positions? can bear a substantial imprint of corporate power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit kinder and more mixed than some other folks?. Some of the GAC positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest objectives that I?d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and other aspects in any given instance? In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual understanding. The GAC communiqu?, which I just forwarded to the list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully respects the Board?s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. What it doesn?t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I?d want to be in their shoes? Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn?t agree with GAC. The 2?s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN?s supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider them in NCUC/SG. I really can?t dig through the transcript right now to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is that PDT?s statements on at least some weren?t entirely clear and definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular local concern: On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that they can?t pay a company for services because they?re sovereigns etc, I?d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial consequences. On the GAC?s objection to being bound by determinations of the ICC, to be honest I can?t find what the Board said in my notes, hopefully Avri remembers? On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC?s bylaws role from advise to command. That is, ?If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,? meant that the GAC?s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it?d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling?s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board ?would have little choice but to reject the application.? Not that it legally couldn?t under the bylaws, but that it?d be stupid and self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be brought to bear to persuade it. The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN?s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there?s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN?s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they?ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they?re getting worried, as Stickling?s speech underscores. See also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling?s testy December letter to Beckstrom?. On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many specific issues, a lot of 1A?s and 1B?s as I recall, but a few key 2? as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another ?scorecard??) should be out soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos? excellent blog analysis. I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Fri Mar 4 18:50:57 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:50:57 +0000 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for this update Bill ? it is certainly very helpful. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ?????????, 4 ??????? 2011 2:50 ?? To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels Hi On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Would appreciate a report on your impressions. Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and systematic report. But hopefully it?s useful nonetheless, and Avri and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN should be providing a report with the board?s assessment of the current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. Before the meeting, the GAC provided a ?scorecard? (a somewhat revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on which it was at odds with ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The scorecard built on the GAC?s Cartagena communiqu? and new member inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be addressed by a ?bylaws consultation? in SF. There the board could formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its decisions. From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems became evident: First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in ?the community? were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing ?advice? on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn?t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn?t have been allowed to fester. Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn?t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it?s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous ?good people? in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can?t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn?t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official ?bylaws consultation? in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn?t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn?t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let?s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that ?community positions? can bear a substantial imprint of corporate power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit kinder and more mixed than some other folks?. Some of the GAC positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest objectives that I?d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and other aspects in any given instance? In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual understanding. The GAC communiqu?, which I just forwarded to the list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully respects the Board?s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. What it doesn?t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I?d want to be in their shoes? Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn?t agree with GAC. The 2?s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN?s supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider them in NCUC/SG. I really can?t dig through the transcript right now to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is that PDT?s statements on at least some weren?t entirely clear and definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular local concern: On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that they can?t pay a company for services because they?re sovereigns etc, I?d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial consequences. On the GAC?s objection to being bound by determinations of the ICC, to be honest I can?t find what the Board said in my notes, hopefully Avri remembers? On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC?s bylaws role from advise to command. That is, ?If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,? meant that the GAC?s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it?d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling?s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board ?would have little choice but to reject the application.? Not that it legally couldn?t under the bylaws, but that it?d be stupid and self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be brought to bear to persuade it. The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN?s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there?s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN?s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they?ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they?re getting worried, as Stickling?s speech underscores. See also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling?s testy December letter to Beckstrom?. On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many specific issues, a lot of 1A?s and 1B?s as I recall, but a few key 2? as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another ?scorecard??) should be out soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos? excellent blog analysis. I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Fri Mar 4 21:31:02 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:31:02 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D714C06.1040308@gmail.com> Thx On 3/4/2011 9:49 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. > > Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I > have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so > this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and > systematic report. But hopefully it?s useful nonetheless, and Avri > and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts > as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on > Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the > several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN > should be providing a report with the board?s assessment of the > current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. > > Before the meeting, the GAC provided a ?scorecard? (a somewhat > revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on > which it was at odds with ICANN > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The > scorecard built on the GAC?s Cartagena communiqu? and new member > inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. > The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which > the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take > items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be > addressed by a ?bylaws consultation? in SF. There the board could > formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any > irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its > decisions. > > From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative > atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were > clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically > bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing > frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an > unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems > became evident: > > First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading > up to the meeting. Many in ?the community? were miffed that the GAC > had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, > when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. > Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing > ?advice? on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its > new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this > seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is > right about that, clearly there hasn?t been enough good communication > and coordination and this disconnect shouldn?t have been allowed to > fester. > > Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn?t understand its > constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note > that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing > financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on > the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that > people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran > counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, > GAC members would argue that it?s just not possible for them to work > in a different and quicker manner since they have various work > responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and > that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally > with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally > with each other. > > Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage > in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous ?good > people? in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, > engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other > techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The > government folks insisted they can?t work that way, they come with > fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the > other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for > re-coordination. As such, they couldn?t give definitive statements of > agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members > palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the > board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the > substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too > surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. > > Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what > happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to > hold an official ?bylaws consultation? in SF at which it presumably > could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or > wasn?t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. > Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were > already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded > all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push > toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and > taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn?t > want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to > a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various > speakers felt moved to say please let?s pull back from the brink and > not end in acrimony, etc. > > Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on > the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC > members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the > GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being > inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that > ?community positions? can bear a substantial imprint of corporate > power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit > kinder and more mixed than some other folks?. Some of the GAC > positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or > seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate > lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought > through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were > also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest > objectives that I?d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not > to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and > other aspects in any given instance? > > In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the > meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of > specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come > away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. > There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual > understanding. The GAC communiqu?, which I just forwarded to the > list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully > respects the Board?s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. > What it doesn?t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is > that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC > members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be > vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not > only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and > got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I?d want to be in their shoes? > > Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the > methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals > (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three > ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice > it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate > and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn?t agree with > GAC. The 2?s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws > consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN?s > supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue > areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider > them in NCUC/SG. I really can?t dig through the transcript right now > to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is > that PDT?s statements on at least some weren?t entirely clear and > definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular > local concern: > > On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the > requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain > circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that > they can?t pay a company for services because they?re sovereigns etc, > I?d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it > to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial > consequences. On the GAC?s objection to being bound by determinations > of the ICC, to be honest I can?t find what the Board said in my notes, > hopefully Avri remembers? > > On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, > the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not > taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments > balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection > to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider > any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. > While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some > principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. > > Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch > talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. > She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that > is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position > should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented > pronouncement that changes GAC?s bylaws role from advise to command. > That is, ?If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose > objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the > application,? meant that the GAC?s advise would be to reject, not that > the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit > of a waffle here, since she also felt it?d be exceptionally > ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling?s > much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board ?would > have little choice but to reject the application.? Not that it > legally couldn?t under the bylaws, but that it?d be stupid and > self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be > brought to bear to persuade it. > > The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about > ICANN?s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for > intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and > China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global > Internet public policy responsibilities, and there?s fear that this > and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or > control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried > that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their > way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national > interests, and/or that ICANN?s is irredeemably accountable to the > broader international community, they?ll become more receptive to > considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether > that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, > and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do > think they?re getting worried, as Stickling?s speech underscores. See > also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama > Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling?s > testy December letter to Beckstrom?. > > On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar > separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when > there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but > maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing > and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, > there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many > specific issues, a lot of 1A?s and 1B?s as I recall, but a few key 2? > as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another ?scorecard??) should be out > soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos? > excellent blog analysis. > > I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to > suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in > the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. > > Cheers, > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 4 21:36:40 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:36:40 -0800 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <72BA8C55-4EE3-4B5B-BABD-D762ADEEB5FB@ipjustice.org> Good stuff, Bill, thanks! On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:49 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. > > Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and systematic report. But hopefully it?s useful nonetheless, and Avri and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN should be providing a report with the board?s assessment of the current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. > > Before the meeting, the GAC provided a ?scorecard? (a somewhat revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on which it was at odds with ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The scorecard built on the GAC?s Cartagena communiqu? and new member inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be addressed by a ?bylaws consultation? in SF. There the board could formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its decisions. > > From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems became evident: > > First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in ?the community? were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing ?advice? on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn?t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn?t have been allowed to fester. > > Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn?t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it?s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. > > Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous ?good people? in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can?t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn?t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. > > Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official ?bylaws consultation? in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn?t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn?t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let?s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. > > Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that ?community positions? can bear a substantial imprint of corporate power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit kinder and more mixed than some other folks?. Some of the GAC positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest objectives that I?d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and other aspects in any given instance? > > In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual understanding. The GAC communiqu?, which I just forwarded to the list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully respects the Board?s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. What it doesn?t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I?d want to be in their shoes? > > Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn?t agree with GAC. The 2?s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN?s supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider them in NCUC/SG. I really can?t dig through the transcript right now to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is that PDT?s statements on at least some weren?t entirely clear and definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular local concern: > > On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that they can?t pay a company for services because they?re sovereigns etc, I?d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial consequences. On the GAC?s objection to being bound by determinations of the ICC, to be honest I can?t find what the Board said in my notes, hopefully Avri remembers? > > On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. > > Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC?s bylaws role from advise to command. That is, ?If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,? meant that the GAC?s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it?d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling?s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board ?would have little choice but to reject the application.? Not that it legally couldn?t under the bylaws, but that it?d be stupid and self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be brought to bear to persuade it. > > The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN?s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there?s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN?s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they?ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they?re getting worried, as Stickling?s speech underscores. See also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling?s testy December letter to Beckstrom?. > > On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many specific issues, a lot of 1A?s and 1B?s as I recall, but a few key 2? as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another ?scorecard??) should be out soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos? excellent blog analysis. > > I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. > > Cheers, > > Bill IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 4 21:51:14 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:51:14 -0800 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: <201103041426.p24EQD3d004439@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> Message-ID: <54B752BB-313E-4F83-BE61-0094734ACE81@ipjustice.org> Beautifully stated, Andrew. I hope the ICANN Board sees it your way. Best, Robin On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: >> Thanks for forwarding that; >> >> Two lines that stick out for me: >> >>> Given that there appear to be a number of issues where the Board and the GAC still >>> need to agree a common approach >> >> ... >> >>> While fully respecting the Board's right not to accept GAC advice, the GAC is >>> obliged to ensure that existing rights, the rule of law and the security and protection of >>> citizens, consumers and businesses, and the principle of national sovereignty for >>> governments are all maintained within the new environment, as well as respect for >>> legitimate interests and sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, >>> geographic and religious significance. The GAC is committed to taking whatever time >>> is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives. > > And as soon as all the members of GAC can achieve complete consensus on all > these issues and agree and implement treaties, I'm sure that ICANN will > happily comply with such new international laws. Until that time, the > bottom-up stakeholder approach ICANN's system supposedly embraces provides > the only sensible way forward for balancing the needs of the entire connected > (and potentially connected) world. > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Fri Mar 4 22:13:36 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:13:36 -0500 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: <54B752BB-313E-4F83-BE61-0094734ACE81@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: What seriously got to me about that WP article was that there was literally no mention of other stakeholders anywhere in it. I'd like to see NCUC publish a response to that. j On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Beautifully stated, Andrew. I hope the ICANN Board sees it your way. > > Best, > Robin > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > > > > And as soon as all the members of GAC can achieve complete consensus on > all > > these issues and agree and implement treaties, I'm sure that ICANN will > > happily comply with such new international laws. Until that time, the > > bottom-up stakeholder approach ICANN's system supposedly embraces > provides > > the only sensible way forward for balancing the needs of the entire > connected > > (and potentially connected) world. > > > > -- > > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Sat Mar 5 22:43:21 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:43:21 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917BF6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Bill, This is a great report, and it's the kind of analysis we desperately need as a group to determine our positions and strategy going forward. Thanks for doing it. Let me respond to a few of the points you made. You have provided a very balanced account but on a few occasions I think your striving for balance is giving false credence to rationalizations that governments (especially the US Govt) have made up to justify their actions. First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in "the community" were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing "advice" on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. [Milton L Mueller] I think the GAC response here is absurd. As someone who participated in the early stages of new gTLD policy formulation during and shortly after the March 2007 "Principles" I know that the GAC Principles massively impacted the policy formation process. The whole attempt to come up with MAPO, for example, had no support in the GNSO but was seen by major business constituencies and staff as a necessary to appease GAC. Arguments against MAPO made by NCUC members were ignored by staff because they thought they had their marching orders from GAC. Furthermore, the MAPO regulations were in place almost two years before Suzanne Sene suddenly objected to them at the June Brussels meeting. Same argument applies to the Commerce Departments sudden call for "research" to support the economic need for new gTLDs. In effect, the DoC was asking us to go back to square one. It is obvious that these pressures came from trademark lobbying and nothing else. The "big" issue here is what constitutes a "public policy issue" and "public policy advice"? Over time, GAC has gravitated more and more toward an operational role, i.e., giving itself direct control over outcomes, rather than providing advice on general policies that should be adopted. The veto - or even the watered down version of giving "advice" on individual applications through a Communique - illustrates the difference. When you look at individual applications and ask to be able to object to them "for any reason" you are not providing "policy advice": you are asking to be the one who makes the final decisions about what TLDs can and cannot exist. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn't been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn't have been allowed to fester. [Milton L Mueller] As I said, the view that there wasn't enough communication is a face-saving, comforting way to construct things. But in my opinion it's false. It would be more accurate to say: as long as the Board doesn't do exactly what the GAC tells it to do, and let the GAC command it any time it wants, we are doing to be hearing about some kind of "disconnect" Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn't understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it's just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. [Milton L Mueller] This difference between the two procedures does indeed exist. And it's important. But what boggles my mind is that no one on the government side seems to remember that this slow, bureaucratic 200-sided multilateral process is PRECISELY WHY WE PUT DNS IN THE HANDS OF ICANN TO BEGIN WITH! We wanted to get DNS out of a situation in which 200 different jurisdictions would try to impose their own law and spend ages trying to work out their differences. Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous "good people" in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can't work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn't give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. [Milton L Mueller] Same comment as above Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official "bylaws consultation" in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn't accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn't want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let's pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. [Milton L Mueller] Again, this to my mind constitutes a clear abuse of process by the GAC. The GAC has no defined process to follow and can just keep all of us hanging. Let's not be na?ve about the possibilities for strategic misuse of this latitude. Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC's bylaws role from advise to command. [Milton L Mueller] You've been played. As I've said in another context, the DoC is making beeping noises as it backs its way out of an uncomfortable position. There was nothing "misread" or misinterpreted about the USG's position; there was, however, something deeply embarrassing about it when exposed to the light, and when we made sufficient noise they were forced to back off. I know that Fiona is very good at such retroactive justifications, but I am not buying it. Consider the following facts: - That document was circulated US Commerce Dept itself to "selected" people, one of whom was so shocked by it they sent it to me. Obviosuly they are not interested in the US public's viewpoint, only certain people they think predisposed to agree with them. - When they were first challenged publicly on it and approached by reporters, they did NOT say anything about it being geared toward internal discussions - they defended the position therein. This is documented. - Even if it was only for internal discussion, it was clearly marked as the "USG position for the GAC scorecard." In other words, it was the position that the USG was taking. If they modified it because of our political pressure, what would they have done if we had not generated that pressure? That is, "If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application," meant that the GAC's advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it'd be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling's much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board "would have little choice but to reject the application." [Milton L Mueller] This is they key! In other words, they really DO want the GAC to have a veto. And note that there is no "policy" here - no general set of rules or guidelines that tells us what is allowed and what is not, there is no reliance on international law, there is just "for any reason." So Fiona's whining about being misunderstood is B.S. The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN's preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there's fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. [Milton L Mueller] Oh, this takes the cake! The old "UN will take over the Internet" bogeyman. I know you are reporting on what Fiona said, and doing it well, but let's at least make some common-sensical emendations. Would someone please explain to me why we should want to prevent the UN or any other intergovernmental institution to "take over" ICANN by giving all-encompassing power over it to an...intergovernmental advisory council. At least the UN agencies have treaties and laws and the treaties have to be ratified by national legislatures and follow due process. If we have to choose between GAC and an IGO, I'll go with a duly constituted, treaty-based IGO. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN's is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they'll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they're getting worried, as Stickling's speech underscores. [Milton L Mueller] The ONLY threat of an Intergovernmental takeover comes from the GAC, and from nowhere else. ITU has been repeatedly rebuffed, and the last Plenipot actually recognized ICANN for the first time; WSIS failed when ICANN was much weaker and more controversial and less attuned to international concerns. I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. [Milton L Mueller] Thanks again! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Sun Mar 6 07:17:53 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:17:53 -0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom Message-ID: <4D732711.1050709@churchofreality.org> I think all of us are on the same page when it comes to freedom on the Internet. But there are other constituencies that see things differently. The difference in viewpoint is about values. Here's the way I see it. The universe has been evolving for the last 13.7 billion years. Life on this planet has evolved into here we are today. But who are we - where are we going - and what does this have to do with the Internet? What makes us different than the other critters inhabiting this planet is that we have evolved the ability to communicate. Humanity has formed a mental network involving billions of minds working together. First we started with language. Then we developed written language allowing information to be passed between people who are not in the same location or time. Then the printing press was a giant leap forward. Then there was radio - television - computers - all expanding the human communication network. And now we have the Internet - which is a network taking us to places we can hardly imagine. The Internet is part of human evolution. It's the most significant step that any species have ever developed. Humanity is at an inflection point where we are transitioning from and evolved species to where we can and will take control over what we will evolve into. Unfortunately our technology is leading our understanding of who we are and what role we will have in the universe and we continue to progress. It is imperative to all of humanity that Internet freedom must prevail in order for us as a species to be as good as we can be. Internet freedom is as basic as talking - as writing - as thinking - as breathing. It is an extension of our collective minds. There are those who have other priorities. Governments want to keep control of their little kingdoms. But these nation states are just all so temporary. And then there's the money interests. Who is going to make a buck off of the web and how do we protect intellectual property from piracy. Yes there will be crime on the Internet. But what is it that's really important here? is it important for governments to keep secrets from the people by shutting down Wikileaks? Or is it more important for people to learn the truth about what governments are up to? Wikileaks has been accused of a lot of things but they haven't been accused of publishing information that isn't true. Do we want to live in a world where the truth is illegal and lying is required? That's not the future that I envision. When a dictator wants to hold onto power in the decade what do they do? The shut down the Internet. That's because the Internet is the way we hold governments accountable. Governments exist to serve the people - not the other way around. We live in an age where corporate interests are expanding all over the planet and they have a lot of money to influence governments. Here in the United States our Supreme Court declared corporation to be people. But corporation aren't people. All the decision showed is who their corporate masters are. The Internet can be a tool of ultimate freedom or ultimate repression. Can you imagine what it would have been like in World War II if today's technology were in the hands of the Nazis? But even though they were defeated there's nothing that prevents something like that from happening again, except the will of the people to make sure that no government gets that kind of power. This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom and oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments shouldn't even be at the table let alone in control. The bottom line for me is this. The freedom of humanity and the future of humanity is more important than government. law, corporations, intellectual property, law enforcement, religion, or money. So it's up to us to draw the line and not let the debate move from values that are more important to values that are less important. We have to make the case that humanity owns the Internet and we're not going to let governments and corporation take it away from us. Marc Perkel First One Church of Reality Keeping it Real From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Sun Mar 6 11:39:39 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:39:39 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917BF6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <32FE7EC6-A538-44E3-935C-B361CAFBE423@GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> Hi Milton On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Bill, > This is a great report, and it?s the kind of analysis we desperately need as a group to determine our positions and strategy going forward. Thanks for doing it. Sure. Was rushing and when I actually read after sending saw a couple of typos that change meanings but whatever, the main drift is clear. > > Let me respond to a few of the points you made. You have provided a very balanced account but on a few occasions I think your striving for balance is giving false credence to rationalizations that governments (especially the US Govt) have made up to justify their actions. I was mostly just reporting what GACsters said rather than critiquing or endorsing it, but your elaboration below does surface some differences of view, which I suppose at some level reflect our respective left lib vs libertarian politics, or maybe more precisely somewhat different views of the international system and states. Always a fun debate to have... > > First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in ?the community? were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing ?advice? on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. > [Milton L Mueller] > > I think the GAC response here is absurd. As someone who participated in the early stages of new gTLD policy formulation during and shortly after the March 2007 ?Principles? I know that the GAC Principles massively impacted the policy formation process. The whole attempt to come up with MAPO, for example, had no support in the GNSO but was seen by major business constituencies and staff as a necessary to appease GAC. Arguments against MAPO made by NCUC members were ignored by staff because they thought they had their marching orders from GAC. Right, but is the demand for MAPO just offensive power grabbing because that's what states do, or is it also/more defensive, at least on the part of democracies? It's pretty easy to imagine that bureaucrats and their ministries would be keen to avoid situations where vocal domestic constituencies, political higher ups, and the media start jumping up and down about how could you let xyz tld go forward? Moreover, there are international political dimensions given widespread views of ICANN being an out of control US/Northern corporate entity that needs at a minimum intergovernmental oversight. Not saying I agree or favor MAPO, just that there's a mix of motivations, and one suspects it would have been difficult for ICANN to just refuse to consider any sort of mechanism to deal with them. > Furthermore, the MAPO regulations were in place almost two years before Suzanne Sene suddenly objected to them at the June Brussels meeting. Same argument applies to the Commerce Departments sudden call for ?research? to support the economic need for new gTLDs. In effect, the DoC was asking us to go back to square one. It is obvious that these pressures came from trademark lobbying and nothing else. Undoubtedly that lobbying is a key driver, it's a short cab ride from K St. to NTIA and the hill. But wanting to slow things down seems overdetermined to me. > > The ?big? issue here is what constitutes a ?public policy issue? and ?public policy advice?? Over time, GAC has gravitated more and more toward an operational role, i.e., giving itself direct control over outcomes, rather than providing advice on general policies that should be adopted. The veto ? or even the watered down version of giving ?advice? on individual applications through a Communique ? illustrates the difference. When you look at individual applications and ask to be able to object to them ?for any reason? you are not providing ?policy advice?: you are asking to be the one who makes the final decisions about what TLDs can and cannot exist. Yup > > Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn?t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn?t have been allowed to fester. > [Milton L Mueller] > > As I said, the view that there wasn?t enough communication is a face-saving, comforting way to construct things. But in my opinion it?s false. It would be more accurate to say: as long as the Board doesn?t do exactly what the GAC tells it to do, and let the GAC command it any time it wants, we are doing to be hearing about some kind of ?disconnect? You think there was enough communication, that GAC and "the community" had fully talked this through and both sides understood each other's concerns and how these could clash etc? I have to say that while I've been on the Council I've seen very little communication with GAC besides the one hour theatre sessions held at ICANN meetings, and basically no internal discussion of the roles and interests of governments. > > Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn?t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it?s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. > [Milton L Mueller] > > This difference between the two procedures does indeed exist. And it?s important. But what boggles my mind is that no one on the government side seems to remember that this slow, bureaucratic 200-sided multilateral process is PRECISELY WHY WE PUT DNS IN THE HANDS OF ICANN TO BEGIN WITH! We wanted to get DNS out of a situation in which 200 different jurisdictions would try to impose their own law and spend ages trying to work out their differences. Ok but the "we" here wasn't most of "them." > > Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous ?good people? in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can?t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn?t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Same comment as above > > Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official ?bylaws consultation? in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn?t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn?t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let?s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Again, this to my mind constitutes a clear abuse of process by the GAC. The GAC has no defined process to follow and can just keep all of us hanging. Let?s not be na?ve about the possibilities for strategic misuse of this latitude. Sure that' possible. But for the board to announce a timetable it must have known GAC would say it can't meet was also a strategic choice. The push back is no surprise. > > Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC?s bylaws role from advise to command. > [Milton L Mueller] > > You?ve been played. Give us a little credit. I was just saying what she argued, that not Avri and I bought it. > As I?ve said in another context, the DoC is making beeping noises as it backs its way out of an uncomfortable position. There was nothing ?misread? or misinterpreted about the USG?s position; there was, however, something deeply embarrassing about it when exposed to the light, and when we made sufficient noise they were forced to back off. I know that Fiona is very good at such retroactive justifications, but I am not buying it. Consider the following facts: > - That document was circulated US Commerce Dept itself to ?selected? people, one of whom was so shocked by it they sent it to me. Obviosuly they are not interested in the US public?s viewpoint, only certain people they think predisposed to agree with them. > - When they were first challenged publicly on it and approached by reporters, they did NOT say anything about it being geared toward internal discussions ? they defended the position therein. This is documented. > - Even if it was only for internal discussion, it was clearly marked as the ?USG position for the GAC scorecard.? In other words, it was the position that the USG was taking. If they modified it because of our political pressure, what would they have done if we had not generated that pressure? > > That is, ?If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,? meant that the GAC?s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it?d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling?s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board ?would have little choice but to reject the application.? > [Milton L Mueller] > > This is they key! In other words, they really DO want the GAC to have a veto. And note that there is no ?policy? here ? no general set of rules or guidelines that tells us what is allowed and what is not, there is no reliance on international law, there is just ?for any reason.? So Fiona?s whining about being misunderstood is B.S. You don't see any difference between saying "the GAC's position would be that it should be vetoed, and we think it'd be politically unwise to proceed over that objection," vs. "ICANN is formally obliged to agree"? I agree with you that it was a horrid proposal and that they hoped the board would feel pressured to oblige, but it didn't entail a bylaws change. > > The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN?s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there?s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Oh, this takes the cake! The old ?UN will take over the Internet? bogeyman. I know you are reporting on what Fiona said, and doing it well, but let?s at least make some common-sensical emendations. Would someone please explain to me why we should want to prevent the UN or any other intergovernmental institution to ?take over? ICANN by giving all-encompassing power over it to an?intergovernmental advisory council. At least the UN agencies have treaties and laws and the treaties have to be ratified by national legislatures and follow due process. If we have to choose between GAC and an IGO, I?ll go with a duly constituted, treaty-based IGO. Really? Wouldn't that have a greater likelihood of institutionalizing all the kinds of dynamics you despise than say an improved, more serious, rule bound GAC? > > The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN?s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they?ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they?re getting worried, as Stickling?s speech underscores. > [Milton L Mueller] > > The ONLY threat of an Intergovernmental takeover comes from the GAC, and from nowhere else. ITU has been repeatedly rebuffed, and the last Plenipot actually recognized ICANN for the first time; WSIS failed when ICANN was much weaker and more controversial and less attuned to international concerns. ITU may not be the only game in town, and who knows what the intergovernmental dialogue will look like if the launching of potentially hundreds of new gTLDs leads to backlashes etc. I agree with you at present, but this is a fluid and unpredictable environment, so it's not necessarily a strict either/or, either the US is just using "the other" or it has real concerns about the known unknowns and believes ICANN leadership is ignoring this at its peril. All grist for the mill next Friday and beyond? Cheers Bill > > > I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Thanks again! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 14:21:52 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:21:52 +0300 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D732711.1050709@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: "The more things change, the more they remain the same.? - Alphonse Karr. There is no doubt that the Internet is so far the single greatest invention by man. But we realize, as historically with all other great resources, that self-serving 'money, power and control' influences have creep onto it. We are living at that moment in history where later generations will learn the process how (or if?) the open Internet was finally grabbed for a thereafter restoration of 'traditional' exploitations. Will the Internet, in the end, serve as a powerful tool of re-occupation, weaker societies' intellectual assets theft and perpetuation of widespread human rights abuses? Considering that private entities are the implementers of this new order as the opposed to hitherto gun trotting powerful foreign governments, does this arrangement of norms ensure that they get away with *anything* since are excused as private corporations? What has not changed is the fact that those with tons of money and power progressively either buying or bulldozing their way into controlling the Internet and the rest of society, regardless of their nation states. One sees on the Internet many bent on furthering an Africa serving the rest world as a source of raw materials - from slavery (raw material labour beings), industrial inputs, agricultural inputs etc. to now "raw material knowledge"? A great many still do not believe or accept that Africa has own refined knowledge and all round innovation, also threatened. Innovation re-colonization may already be taking place faster than we imagined. Like the old "discoverers" technology scouts are out around the world collecting nuggets of local technologies and rushing them through IP registrations back at their homes jurisdictions. Regardless of if we expect an even greater technology to be invented in future or not, one suspects that our distant folk, all waiting to be born, will undergo the same old "money, power and control" motions:-) regards, Alex On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Marc Perkel wrote: > I think all of us are on the same page when it comes to freedom on the > Internet. But there are other constituencies that see things differently. > The difference in viewpoint is about values. > > Here's the way I see it. The universe has been evolving for the last 13.7 > billion years. Life on this planet has evolved into here we are today. But > who are we - where are we going - and what does this have to do with the > Internet? > > What makes us different than the other critters inhabiting this planet is > that we have evolved the ability to communicate. Humanity has formed a > mental network involving billions of minds working together. First we > started with language. Then we developed written language allowing > information to be passed between people who are not in the same location or > time. Then the printing press was a giant leap forward. Then there was radio > - television - computers - all expanding the human communication network. > And now we have the Internet - which is a network taking us to places we can > hardly imagine. The Internet is part of human evolution. It's the most > significant step that any species have ever developed. > > Humanity is at an inflection point where we are transitioning from and > evolved species to where we can and will take control over what we will > evolve into. Unfortunately our technology is leading our understanding of > who we are and what role we will have in the universe and we continue to > progress. > > It is imperative to all of humanity that Internet freedom must prevail in > order for us as a species to be as good as we can be. Internet freedom is as > basic as talking - as writing - as thinking - as breathing. It is an > extension of our collective minds. > > There are those who have other priorities. Governments want to keep control > of their little kingdoms. But these nation states are just all so temporary. > And then there's the money interests. Who is going to make a buck off of the > web and how do we protect intellectual property from piracy. Yes there will > be crime on the Internet. > > But what is it that's really important here? is it important for governments > to keep secrets from the people by shutting down Wikileaks? Or is it more > important for people to learn the truth about what governments are up to? > Wikileaks has been accused of a lot of things but they haven't been accused > of publishing information that isn't true. Do we want to live in a world > where the truth is illegal and lying is required? That's not the future that > I envision. > > When a dictator wants to hold onto power in the decade what do they do? The > shut down the Internet. That's because the Internet is the way we hold > governments accountable. Governments exist to serve the people - not the > other way around. > > We live in an age where corporate interests are expanding all over the > planet and they have a lot of money to influence governments. Here in the > United States our Supreme Court declared corporation to be people. But > corporation aren't people. All the decision showed is who their corporate > masters are. > > The Internet can be a tool of ultimate freedom or ultimate repression. Can > you imagine what it would have been like in World War II if today's > technology were in the hands of the Nazis? But even though they were > defeated there's nothing that prevents something like that from happening > again, except the will of the people to make sure that no government gets > that kind of power. > > This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom and > oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments shouldn't even > be at the table let alone in control. > > The bottom line for me is this. The freedom of humanity and the future of > humanity is more important than government. law, corporations, intellectual > property, law enforcement, religion, or money. So it's up to us to draw the > line and not let the debate move from values that are more important to > values that are less important. We have to make the case that humanity owns > the Internet and we're not going to let governments and corporation take it > away from us. > > Marc Perkel > First One > Church of Reality > Keeping it Real > From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 14:54:57 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 07:54:57 -0600 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Alex, et all, > There is no doubt that the Internet is so far the single greatest > invention by man. With all due respect I disagree, there are many other inventions and achievements by man which without them there would be no Internet. Some thoughts are interesting and well intended, but to develop a better ground to analyze some of these issues we need to strip ourselves of the government control fobia. The Internet is just a communication service or tool, what people do with it its what makes it different. My biggest concern is that the new gTLD program continue to be flawed because it will not provide additional competition and equal access, not only we are spending an incredible amount of resources, we are enabling particular sectors to control and do governance by proxy with ICANN and there is no fair balance on the benefits where companies, IP holders and governments get with this program. IMHO we are riding on a dead horse. My .02 Jorge From avri at LTU.SE Sun Mar 6 16:10:39 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:10:39 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D732711.1050709@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4C7B2AE3-D61C-453B-A9EC-A7D68D30F353@ltu.se> On 6 Mar 2011, at 01:17, Marc Perkel wrote: > > This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom and oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments shouldn't even be at the table let alone in control. While as a utopian normative statement, i might want to agree, the point is they are in control of our lives and bringing them to the table is a step in the right direction. a. From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 17:45:46 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:45:46 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D73BA3A.5030104@gmail.com> Hi Jorge, I have to disagree on 2 points (or 1 and a half). We should judge the importance of the Internet by putting it on the axis of discoveries that includes the printing press. Seen from this light, the Internet might very well be the most important invention ever. Especially if we take a step back and we say that "Internet" is a "process", an emergent thing, then its place at the very top of our list of important invention is, i would say, very much settled. (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very deserving also) On the relevance of identifying as the main axis of contention that of "government control vs multi-stakeholderism", and of fighting over this axis, i would also say that it is proper. I'm not sure if you were fully making the point that is should not be the main axis of contention, but if you were, i would have to disagree. It's not the only axis of contention on which we should dwell, by far, but it is an important one. To quote a very interesting Canadian (Bill St-Arnaud), "While Gutenberg did invent the printing press he only saw it as a tool for more efficient copying of the Bible. It was an Englishman named William Tyndale who grasped the significance of the printing press as a way of mass distribution and educating the masses. For his troubles he was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church ? a fate that many telco executives, movie and record producers could only wish upon those who are fighting for an open Internet today." Nicolas On 3/6/2011 8:54 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > Hi Alex, et all, > >> There is no doubt that the Internet is so far the single greatest >> invention by man. > With all due respect I disagree, there are many other inventions and > achievements by man which without them there would be no Internet. > > Some thoughts are interesting and well intended, but to develop a > better ground to analyze some of these issues we need to strip > ourselves of the government control fobia. > > The Internet is just a communication service or tool, what people do > with it its what makes it different. > > My biggest concern is that the new gTLD program continue to be flawed > because it will not provide additional competition and equal access, > not only we are spending an incredible amount of resources, we are > enabling particular sectors to control and do governance by proxy with > ICANN and there is no fair balance on the benefits where companies, IP > holders and governments get with this program. > > IMHO we are riding on a dead horse. > > My .02 > Jorge From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Sun Mar 6 17:56:09 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 08:56:09 -0800 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC Message-ID: <716C5089-9397-4B99-BCD3-4F3F9BB17183@ipjustice.org> Chair of ICANN's Board responded via email to Govts (GAC) on policy disagreements & compromises for top-level Internet domain names: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05mar11-en.pdf IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 18:06:28 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 13:06:28 -0400 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello everyone: Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her directly at ana.neves at umic.pt For those who may not be aware of her background, here is a link to her LinkedIn profile: http://pt.linkedin.com/pub/ana-cristina-neves/12/803/420 I do hope this helps. Rgds, Tracy On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > I think Milton is right, somebody more attuned with the issues would be a > better panelist than me. For the last 3 weeks I have been submerged in some > outside-of-ICANN work thus another person would be more resourceful. Thanks, > Alex. > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > Why not put Carlos on the panel? >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Sun Mar 6 18:47:44 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:47:44 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <24C8F5AD-F113-4DD8-96F3-3D805AEC8E21@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Thanks for the information, Tracy. Ana's very good, but she represents an industrialized country government, one that has been fairly vocal in opposing the sort of proposals being advanced by key developing countries for a greater governmental and intergovernmental role. What I and I've learned others had in mind was a bit different. As I said previously, I've been trying to get a developing country government representative for several weeks. I tried to recruit Olga Cavalli, who formally represented Argentina in GAC and is now a GNSO nomcom appointee, but it turned out her flight gets in too late. I tried to get Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government and GAC co-chair, but heard from her on Friday that she can't make it. I've now got an invitation out to Mme Nd?ye Maimouna Diop Diagne of Senegal, but have yet to hear back. If that doesn't work, I thought about trying Katim or Gonzalo from the Board, or else trying to get Alex to change his mind (nothing wrong with having all civil society & technical community panelists, I guess). It's not so easy when you move from general desires to who's actually coming, will be there on time, is interested, and is prone to frequently read and rapidly reply to email. To be honest, I think it's a little awkward to be discussing the potential fit and prospects of speaker options on a public list; some people would not necessarily prefer to learn they were a discussion topic, particularly if they're not ultimately invited. If there are folks who'd like to provide more input or be kept abreast of efforts to fill this panel slot, it might be better to take it off line. I'm traveling from tomorrow but will have access when not in transit. Best, Bill On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hello everyone: > > Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. > > If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her directly at ana.neves at umic.pt > > For those who may not be aware of her background, here is a link to her LinkedIn profile: > > http://pt.linkedin.com/pub/ana-cristina-neves/12/803/420 > > I do hope this helps. > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > I think Milton is right, somebody more attuned with the issues would be a better panelist than me. For the last 3 weeks I have been submerged in some outside-of-ICANN work thus another person would be more resourceful. Thanks, Alex. > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > understand, will be in San Fran on time. > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 19:41:22 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:41:22 -0600 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D73BA3A.5030104@gmail.com> Message-ID: > (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very > deserving also) I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like the atomic bomb ... As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps more important has been the invention of the written word. The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc recommendations. IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit about governance, IP & commercial interests, yada, yada, we are loosing. We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." My .02 Jorge From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 20:02:37 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:02:37 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <716C5089-9397-4B99-BCD3-4F3F9BB17183@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4D73DA4D.1080008@gmail.com> I have to say that except a few points, i agree with how the Board classified GAC's requests. Point 5 on the integration of registries and registrars: My beef with institutionalizing a market [no market can ever be deemed pre-political, pre-cultural or pre-legal, so ... a market always is institutionnalized ==> that should take care of "regulation/anti-regulations" debates] where the rules of the game favor integration is that, under the actual terms of national competition laws, "market power" is a theoretical impossibility. IMHO, as a general rule but the devil is in the details, for the markets with amazingly complex and extended value chains ==> let's just try a market devoid of the "power" variable for a change, and see what it would get us. In my mind, that would be true "laisser faire", while the usual "laisser faire" [i.e. enabling integration] is in fact more about letting competition use other strategical assets [such as power] than just cost, price, productivity, and performance. This analysis can be showed wrong for some particular markets, and maybe names and numbers are such a market... I will admit that i have spent less time thinking about the particular integration impact of registry and registrar operations then i have for other markets (i.e. telecommunications services markets), and I will welcome your references on this point. In any case, except for this view of mine which i don't expect to be shared accross NCUC members, i have to say that i find myself well represented by the Board in its answer to the GAC. Some other points: 6.2.1 if the timeframe for a responding party is too short already. Don't know about that. Not sure what to think about 6.2.5 either. However, the Board's consistent 2s in the 6.2.x issues are commendable. 6.2.10.1 is outright funny ;) I am uneasy with some compromises (e.g. 6.4.2) but ... Nicolas On 3/6/2011 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Chair of ICANN's Board responded via email to Govts (GAC) on policy disagreements& compromises for top-level Internet domain names: > http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05mar11-en.pdf > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 20:10:40 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:10:40 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D73DC30.6090501@gmail.com> Yes, Jorge, you're very right on everything. I like to ask people who might not be so impressed as i am with the multi-faceted magnificence of the Internet chains-of-inventions: "How important do you think the printing press was?" People usually pause at this, but there are many other cool things out there. Cheers. Nicolas On 3/6/2011 1:41 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Sun Mar 6 20:41:21 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:41:21 -0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D73E361.4060500@churchofreality.org> Yes there were many thing leading up to the Internet. The invention of the transistor for example. The Internet however brings minds together from all over the world and allows for mental networking on a whole new scale. Human evolution is not about gene mutations anymore. It's about information and technology evolution. The Internet allows information to be stored and distributed like never before. On 3/6/2011 10:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge > From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Sun Mar 6 21:00:42 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:00:42 -0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4C7B2AE3-D61C-453B-A9EC-A7D68D30F353@ltu.se> Message-ID: At 10:10 AM -0500 3/6/11, Avri Doria wrote: >On 6 Mar 2011, at 01:17, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> >> This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom >>and oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments >>shouldn't even be at the table let alone in control. > > >While as a utopian normative statement, i might want to agree, the point >is they are in control of our lives and bringing them to the table is a >step in the right direction. > This is a fine pragmatic sentiment, and generally I can agree with the overall intent here. However the details make a difference (or in cliche terms, the devil is in the details): *how* one brings them to the table makes a difference. In particular, you want to make sure they don't abjectly take over the table as a precondition for coming to it. How do you tame a tiger, when the tiger is ultimately in control in the larger global context? This is a delicate balancing act, and those who are wary of it have every right to be. Structural issues of governance protocol are paramount, and deserve to be examined with a fine-toothed comb. Think about general principles such as separation and balance of powers, which are what makes real democracies actually work, to the extent that they do work and aren't entirely captured by plutocracy "under the hood." These separations are absolutely critical, and cannot be allowed to present a "rhetorical front" without teeth or meaning in practice, which is worse than not having the separation at all, because it presents the *illusion* of separation that undermines action to make the separation real ("nothing to see hear, let's move along, now..."). Dan PS: I just want to say how much I'm enjoying Milton and Bill's exchange. Many insights that I would not have much access to otherwise. The combination of long experience and direct observation is something that is less common among those of us with less experience and history with ICANN, and the more this can be disseminated among the rest of us, the better (given that most of us are engaging this pro bono, which limits our capacity to absorb details and evaluate them in a broad context). -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. From mueller at SYR.EDU Sun Mar 6 23:37:39 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:37:39 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Well put > -----Original Message----- > > In particular, you want to make sure they don't abjectly take over the > table as a precondition for coming to it. > From mueller at SYR.EDU Sun Mar 6 23:43:32 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:43:32 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Tracy: Thanks for your effort. However, the original "concern" came from the fact that there was not enough people from "the South" on the panel. Typically this means non-European/North American and from developing countries. A governmental rep from Portugal is probably not what these objectors had in mind (especially if Bill is right that this one has not been that supportive of the LDC perspective). --MM From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:06 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event program Hello everyone: Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her directly at ana.neves at umic.pt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nhklein at GMX.NET Mon Mar 7 01:36:05 2011 From: nhklein at GMX.NET (nhklein) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:36:05 +0700 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D742875.7000500@gmx.net> Thanks, Milton - it is so often "the South" as you paraphrase it, and not "the South of Europe" that is left out. And therefore we had also discussions time and again that our colleagues from Australia/NewZealand (though in the ICANN defined "Asia Pacific Region") are not representing the majority of Africa/Asia/Latin American situations (though they are welcome representing, officially, the countries in the AP region). Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia On 03/07/2011 05:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Tracy: > > Thanks for your effort. However, the original "concern" came from the > fact that there was not enough people from "the South" on the panel. > Typically this means non-European/North American and from developing > countries. A governmental rep from Portugal is probably not what these > objectors had in mind (especially if Bill is right that this one has > not been that supportive of the LDC perspective). > > --MM > > *From:*NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On > Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Sent:* Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:06 PM > *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > program > > Hello everyone: > > Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of > the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all > Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her > availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. > > If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her > directly at ana.neves at umic.pt > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Mon Mar 7 02:54:18 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:54:18 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <716C5089-9397-4B99-BCD3-4F3F9BB17183@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <201103070154.p271sILl024863@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections seems very strange. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From tinwee at BIC.NUS.EDU.SG Mon Mar 7 03:04:13 2011 From: tinwee at BIC.NUS.EDU.SG (Tan Tin Wee) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:04:13 +0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D743D1D.1060604@bic.nus.edu.sg> Indeed, in the early nineties, when I was taking over the running of the Internet services in my country, I asked the guy whom I was taking over, what makes the Internet work, Dr Tommi Chen told me, it is obvious, the "Internet spirit of voluntarism", of which many in this forum exemplify. Thanks for your keen sense of this Internet spirit! bestrgds tinwee On 3/7/2011 2:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) >> > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 7 03:04:57 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:04:57 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <201103070154.p271sILl024863@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> Message-ID: <6B810150-D74A-4ACB-89DC-CE38232ABD16@ltu.se> Hi, I have no real issue with the GAC being able to object without paying a fee as long the applicant does not have to pay a fee to respond to the objections. The application fee is so obscenely high and padded with a fortune in 'insurance' against possible litigation (i guess close to 100K or the 185K ) that I think the program in general can cover the fees for the making of and responding to Government objections and still be well within the guideline to be cost neutral to ICANN. In fact I think ICANN is going to have to work had to have the program be cost neutral as opposed to profitable. a. On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:54, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that > governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a > gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections > and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are > not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD > already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the > board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections > seems very strange. > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID Mon Mar 7 03:06:48 2011 From: rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID (Rudi Rusdiah) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:06:48 +0700 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D743DB8.2090905@rad.net.id> internet for me is a technology allow us to connect to you easily.. no additional cost... no barrier customs, time and space... before... in 1996 this is not possible for us in indonesia... and still not possible in some remote village :-) note: 1. next week we will install an wardes (village netcafe) in a remote district called Long Bawan, east kalimantan province (borneo highland) ... remote district no road access... no electricity ( the river water electric generator was not working for 8 months)... of course no internet for most of the people there... but they live prosperous exporting salt, vegetable and rice to sarawak (malaysia) and brunei. 2. prosperous means not under poverty... enough food, school for the kids till highschool and there is a christian seminary there... most of the people are dayak tribe (long daya) and christian On 03/07/2011 01:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) >> > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge > > > From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 7 06:21:24 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:21:24 -0600 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D743DB8.2090905@rad.net.id> Message-ID: > internet for me is a technology allow us to connect to you easily.. no > additional cost... no barrier customs, time and space... > > before... in 1996 this is not possible for us in indonesia... ?and still not > possible in some ?remote village :-) Glad to know you keep the spirit and keep working to get more people connected. Ages ago, and funny now that we have the UN-ITU-IGF-WSIS circus, small projects run under the umbrella of UNDP and some ONGs (Carlos and others from APC may remember), many of us early young net activist geeks use to travel around the world carrying a modem and disks with a UUCP version for PC's. In the early days of the network in Argentina, before we were able to establish the very first permanent connection, at the University of Buenos Aires and in cooperation with the IT project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (another UNDP one), we enabled dialup accounts for remote nodes using UUCP, yes we all were craving for a better connection but having at least email was a tremendous progress for many remote locations. We were duplicating diskettes like AOL was mailing CDs. Technology normally helps to make things easier, faster, better, what makes it possible is PEOPLE !! Another gig I was involved during my tenure on different UNDP projects, was actually working with other folks to make a "bridge" between the UN internal email system (I believe it was called billings, can't remember now) and get UN NY DMIS (Data Management Information Services) hooked up with JVNcNet (one of the old regionals of the NSFNet era), many said that it was an impossible thing to do, technically and bureaucratically, we just did it and undp.org was born. I'm really sad to see that as a civil society group with non commercial interests it seems that now to be in the picture we have to learn to dance at the beat of somebody else's music. The GAC or any other form of para-intergovernmental arrangement will keep trying at any cost and with all resources to gain control, not because they know what to do with it, just because is intrinsic for each government to show who is in control, will see what the BoD has to say about all this ... have fun in SFO, was planning to go but other priorities keep me on the sidelines and with no much time to participate and contribute more. Cheers Jorge > > note: 1. next week we will install an wardes (village netcafe) in a remote > district called Long Bawan, east kalimantan province (borneo highland) ... > remote district no road access... no electricity ( the river water electric > generator was not working for 8 months)... of course no internet for most of > the people there... but they live prosperous exporting salt, vegetable and > rice to sarawak (malaysia) and brunei. > 2. prosperous means not under poverty... enough food, school for the kids > till highschool and there is a christian seminary there... most of the > people are dayak tribe (long daya) and christian > > On 03/07/2011 01:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >>> >>> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >>> deserving also) >>> >> >> I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet >> under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like >> the atomic bomb ... >> >> As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to >> increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps >> more important has been the invention of the written word. >> >> The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call >> "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML >> and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a >> high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. >> >> Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet >> and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the >> kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and >> implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc >> recommendations. >> >> IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that >> since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across >> borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of >> nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational >> background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the >> "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit >> about governance, IP& ?commercial interests, yada, yada, we are >> loosing. >> >> We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del >> chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something >> like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." >> >> My .02 >> Jorge >> >> >> > > From ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP Mon Mar 7 06:49:27 2011 From: ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:49:27 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <6B810150-D74A-4ACB-89DC-CE38232ABD16@ltu.se> Message-ID: Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and culture trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will happen with new gTLDs. Why should they pay to protect something connected with national sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual or corporate) gain, but for citizens. In the TLD space many have gone through a redelegation to get their ccTLD "back". I'm not sure I see its as getting the thing "back", but some govt do. There's no fee involved in a redelegation. But it's extremely costly. Some I think see new objection process as a kind of extension of the same -- an externally imposed cost. It costs to object, govt will need staff to do something, might even need a lawyer... The fee ICANN asks for might be small, there may be higher costs. Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind to a private sector organization. Doesn't matter if just a couple of hundred dollars, there is no mechanism to make a payment. People involved on the IGF will remember many govt cannot give money to support the forum for the same reason: it's an odd organization, doesn't fit with most govt budget lines so they can't give when many genuinely want to. And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, particularly given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. And Avri's very likely right. Adam >Hi, > >I have no real issue with the GAC being able to object without >paying a fee as long the applicant does not have to pay a fee to >respond to the objections. > >The application fee is so obscenely high and padded with a fortune >in 'insurance' against possible litigation (i guess close to 100K or >the 185K ) that I think the program in general can cover the fees >for the making of and responding to Government objections and still >be well within the guideline to be cost neutral to ICANN. In fact I >think ICANN is going to have to work had to have the program be cost >neutral as opposed to profitable. > >a. > >On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:54, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > >> It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that >> governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a >> gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections >> and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are >> not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD >> already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the >> board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections >> seems very strange. >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Mon Mar 7 06:57:37 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:57:37 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 6, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Tracy: > Thanks for your effort. However, the original ?concern? came from the fact that there was not enough people from ?the South? on the panel. Typically this means non-European/North American and from developing countries. A governmental rep from Portugal is probably not what these objectors had in mind (especially if Bill is right that this one has not been that supportive of the LDC perspective). Again, she is very good and supportive of development concerns in ICANN, IGF etc, but she's from the North and has not been an advocate of a G77-style position on intergovernmentalism. That profile is already on the panel. Please let's discuss possible speakers off list and coordinate any outreach to avoid further awkwardness. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Mon Mar 7 07:29:36 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 01:29:36 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C22@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely > trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and culture > trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for > example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will happen > with new gTLDs. Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who has the proper right to use words. It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part, which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)? Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first. > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national > sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual or > corporate) gain, but for citizens. Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national sovereignty? Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the domain name space? > Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind to > a private sector organization. Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a sovereign right to seat 23 A? > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, particularly > given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. What principle would that be? From ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO Mon Mar 7 07:52:07 2011 From: ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:52:07 +0200 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C22@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20110307065207.GA14227@baribal.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:29:36AM -0500, Milton L Mueller (mueller at SYR.EDU) wrote: > Can you point me to the international law that says only the > Peruvian government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in > the domain name space? Amusingly, "peru" is a word in Finnish, or actually two: as a noun it means "potato" in a number of dialects (abbreviated from "peruna" in standard Finnish), and as a verb it means "cancel". A bit more relevant, e.g., "peru.org" and "peru.fi" belong to US and Finnish companies, respectively, selling travels to Peru, and I doubt they've asked permission from Peruvian government either. -- Tapani Tarvainen From ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP Mon Mar 7 08:47:04 2011 From: ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:47:04 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C22@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Just passing on what I hear, not presenting opinions. > > -----Original Message----- >> Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely >> trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and culture >> trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for >> example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will happen >> with new gTLDs. > >Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who >has the proper right to use words. >It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have >been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have >spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use >that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part, >which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)? > >Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic >expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that >narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer >protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get >to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the >world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first. An example I've heard is Kikoi/Kikoy, a type of traditional Kenyan cloth. UK company tried to trademark the name. Happens all the time. Very expensive, annoying, etc to challenge. It's not particular to ICANN and the DNS, everything from culture to traditional medicines. And "sorry you didn't get there first" doesn't seem to make people happy. I wonder why... > > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national >> sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual or >> corporate) gain, but for citizens. > >Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national sovereignty? >Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States >Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can >you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian >government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the >domain name space? > >> Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind to >> a private sector organization. > >Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a >sovereign right to seat 23 A? Not sure your example's relevant. I don't understand govt budgets so won't try to make up an answer. But if a room full of government reps, developed and developing country, say we do not have a budget line for this kind of payment, I think a good idea to take what they say at face value. > > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, particularly >> given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. > >What principle would that be? ? ? ? Adam From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 7 14:38:44 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:38:44 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D74DFE4.9050003@gmail.com> Isn't gTLD enlargement at least in part proposed to, in time, kill the many contestations over who owns a given alphanumeric string? I mean, with a limitless gTLD space, isn't the message: "market, disseminate, develop [your brand and its chosen gTLD] rather than protect [it]?" I don't think it's too much to ask for gvnmt to pay for whatever contestations they have. In turn, ICANN should ban domain tasting. Is this already being done? Nicolas On 3/7/2011 2:47 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Just passing on what I hear, not presenting opinions. > > >> > -----Original Message----- >>> Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely >>> trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and >>> culture >>> trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for >>> example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will >>> happen >>> with new gTLDs. >> >> Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who >> has the proper right to use words. >> It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have >> been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have >> spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use >> that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part, >> which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)? >> >> Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic >> expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that >> narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer >> protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get >> to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the >> world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first. > > > > An example I've heard is Kikoi/Kikoy, a type of traditional Kenyan > cloth. UK company tried to trademark the name. Happens all the > time. Very expensive, annoying, etc to challenge. It's not particular > to ICANN and the DNS, everything from culture to traditional > medicines. And "sorry you didn't get there first" doesn't seem to > make people happy. I wonder why... > > > >> > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national >>> sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal >>> (individual or >>> corporate) gain, but for citizens. >> >> Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national >> sovereignty? >> Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States >> Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can >> you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian >> government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the >> domain name space? >> >>> Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this >>> kind to >>> a private sector organization. >> >> Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a >> sovereign right to seat 23 A? > > > Not sure your example's relevant. I don't understand govt budgets so > won't try to make up an answer. But if a room full of government reps, > developed and developing country, say we do not have a budget line for > this kind of payment, I think a good idea to take what they say at > face value. > > >> > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, >> particularly >>> given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. >> >> What principle would that be? > > > ? ? ? > > Adam From mueller at SYR.EDU Mon Mar 7 19:16:53 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:16:53 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <4D74DFE4.9050003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ideally, everyone would adopt this reasonable attitude. Domain tasting has been eliminated as far as I know. It was a predictable outcome of ICANN's approach to a "grace period" and I think it has been fixed. > -----Original Message----- > Isn't gTLD enlargement at least in part proposed to, in time, kill the > many contestations over who owns a given alphanumeric string? I mean, > with a limitless gTLD space, isn't the message: "market, disseminate, > develop [your brand and its chosen gTLD] rather than protect [it]?" I > don't think it's too much to ask for gvnmt to pay for whatever > contestations they have. In turn, ICANN should ban domain tasting. Is > this already being done? > > Nicolas > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 7 21:34:52 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:34:52 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: <32FE7EC6-A538-44E3-935C-B361CAFBE423@GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> Message-ID: <68D6E5B6-4FDC-4B48-9FC4-B12CA1A10EA7@ltu.se> Adding my view as another who was there. On 6 Mar 2011, at 05:39, William Drake wrote: > Hi Milton > > On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Bill, >> This is a great report, and it?s the kind of analysis we desperately need as a group to determine our positions and strategy going forward. Thanks for doing it. > > Sure. Was rushing and when I actually read after sending saw a couple of typos that change meanings but whatever, the main drift is clear. >> >> Let me respond to a few of the points you made. You have provided a very balanced account but on a few occasions I think your striving for balance is giving false credence to rationalizations that governments (especially the US Govt) have made up to justify their actions. > > I was mostly just reporting what GACsters said rather than critiquing or endorsing it, but your elaboration below does surface some differences of view, which I suppose at some level reflect our respective left lib vs libertarian politics, or maybe more precisely somewhat different views of the international system and states. Always a fun debate to have... >> >> First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in ?the community? were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing ?advice? on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. This is one of the GAC claims that I have problems with. At the beginning of the new gTLD process GAC had a liaison on the GNSO who actually participated and I believe attended some of the discussions meetings. I also know that they were frequently invited and that I made a report to the GAC at every meeting of what was going on and the degree to which we had taken their principles into account. The issue is, they did not, and still for the most part do not, want to take part in the nitty gritty work of building the policies. They look down on the people participating in the WGs and SOs and feel that the Board is the only one worthy of their attention. If they are going to ignore all invitations to work together during the process, they have, in my view no right to complain about not being included. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> I think the GAC response here is absurd. As someone who participated in the early stages of new gTLD policy formulation during and shortly after the March 2007 ?Principles? I know that the GAC Principles massively impacted the policy formation process. The whole attempt to come up with MAPO, for example, had no support in the GNSO but was seen by major business constituencies and staff as a necessary to appease GAC. Arguments against MAPO made by NCUC members were ignored by staff because they thought they had their marching orders from GAC. > > Right, but is the demand for MAPO just offensive power grabbing because that's what states do, or is it also/more defensive, at least on the part of democracies? It's pretty easy to imagine that bureaucrats and their ministries would be keen to avoid situations where vocal domestic constituencies, political higher ups, and the media start jumping up and down about how could you let xyz tld go forward? Moreover, there are international political dimensions given widespread views of ICANN being an out of control US/Northern corporate entity that needs at a minimum intergovernmental oversight. Not saying I agree or favor MAPO, just that there's a mix of motivations, and one suspects it would have been difficult for ICANN to just refuse to consider any sort of mechanism to deal with them. > >> Furthermore, the MAPO regulations were in place almost two years before Suzanne Sene suddenly objected to them at the June Brussels meeting. Same argument applies to the Commerce Departments sudden call for ?research? to support the economic need for new gTLDs. In effect, the DoC was asking us to go back to square one. It is obvious that these pressures came from trademark lobbying and nothing else. I would need to research this, but I think Suzanne might even have been at the meeting in MdR where Paul Twomey first introduced MAPO as the solution to the problem of how to deal with GAC issues. > > Undoubtedly that lobbying is a key driver, it's a short cab ride from K St. to NTIA and the hill. But wanting to slow things down seems overdetermined to me. The IPC issue is a problem in itself. They first compromised with the GNSO council in creating the policy and even voted for it (only the NCUC didn't completely vote for the new gTLD program in the GNSO). Then they pushed the IRT and got the STI, but in the end they compromised and agreed on STI. But that was still not enough and they wanted more, so now they 'stomp' out of meetings and lobby any government willing to listen. Every compromise on IP issues is just the platform from which the IP lobby starts its next fight. I believe in compromise in a multistakeholder process, but only when the other party honors the compromise. And I do not feel that has happened on IP issues in the new gTLD process. > >> >> The ?big? issue here is what constitutes a ?public policy issue? and ?public policy advice?? Over time, GAC has gravitated more and more toward an operational role, i.e., giving itself direct control over outcomes, rather than providing advice on general policies that should be adopted. The veto ? or even the watered down version of giving ?advice? on individual applications through a Communique ? illustrates the difference. When you look at individual applications and ask to be able to object to them ?for any reason? you are not providing ?policy advice?: you are asking to be the one who makes the final decisions about what TLDs can and cannot exist. > > Yup On this I think I disagree. The GAC has by-laws license to question any decision that will be made by the Board. It was our insistence in REC6 that the Board itself had to respond to every controversial string objection. In my view it has nothing to do with what is or isn't a public policy decision (which I think at best has a very fuzzy distinction and depends on your political philosophy - governments see anything they talk about as a public policy issue other wise they would not be talking about it) but rather with the role of Advisory Committees in ICANN. They can advise on anything. And while ALAC can be ignored with impunity, the by-laws give the GAC the right to be heard, responded to and engaged in discussion. I think that this is a clever solution to the veto problem as it relies on existing mechanisms. The first 45 days will allow for anyone to comment on anything. GAC comments will be called Early Warning and will come in the form of advice. There will be no obligation for the board to act on it, as I understand, until the end of the application process, but it will serve to warn anyone who did not know better already that they have a tough hill to climb. Warnings are good things and someone who heeds the warning gets a partial refund instead of dumping a lot of money into a tough cause. Those who want the fight will know they have to get ready. I heard Stuart Lawley of .xxx say he wished he had gotten an early warning. One good thing the Board seems to be requiring in this Advice is that they want to know whether there is a consensus or not and the names of those countries who made and supported the objection. I think we should support the Board in this demand. Note a consensus is something that I think the GAC can only get when they are actually sitting in session with a quorum (whatever that means for the GAC). Does that mean they will have to physically meet during the 45 days period to decide on such advice? Perhaps we need to get ready for that meeting - in the room and in the streets. > >> >> Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn?t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn?t have been allowed to fester. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> As I said, the view that there wasn?t enough communication is a face-saving, comforting way to construct things. But in my opinion it?s false. It would be more accurate to say: as long as the Board doesn?t do exactly what the GAC tells it to do, and let the GAC command it any time it wants, we are doing to be hearing about some kind of ?disconnect? Yeah, but I do not believe the Board, at least not this Board is going to capitulate on all the demands. But I do believe they are going to give them due consideration and due diligence as required by the by-laws. > > You think there was enough communication, that GAC and "the community" had fully talked this through and both sides understood each other's concerns and how these could clash etc? I have to say that while I've been on the Council I've seen very little communication with GAC besides the one hour theatre sessions held at ICANN meetings, and basically no internal discussion of the roles and interests of governments. > >> >> Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn?t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it?s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> This difference between the two procedures does indeed exist. And it?s important. But what boggles my mind is that no one on the government side seems to remember that this slow, bureaucratic 200-sided multilateral process is PRECISELY WHY WE PUT DNS IN THE HANDS OF ICANN TO BEGIN WITH! We wanted to get DNS out of a situation in which 200 different jurisdictions would try to impose their own law and spend ages trying to work out their differences. > > Ok but the "we" here wasn't most of "them." >> >> Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous ?good people? in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can?t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn?t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> Same comment as above >> >> Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official ?bylaws consultation? in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn?t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn?t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let?s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> Again, this to my mind constitutes a clear abuse of process by the GAC. The GAC has no defined process to follow and can just keep all of us hanging. Let?s not be na?ve about the possibilities for strategic misuse of this latitude. > > Sure that' possible. But for the board to announce a timetable it must have known GAC would say it can't meet was also a strategic choice. The push back is no surprise. Actually I bet the Board thinks it was sandbagged. >> >> Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC?s bylaws role from advise to command. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> You?ve been played. I tend to believe what people say to me until they have given me a reason to no longer do so. These people have not given me a reason to disbelieve them. > > Give us a little credit. I was just saying what she argued, that not Avri and I bought it. > >> As I?ve said in another context, the DoC is making beeping noises as it backs its way out of an uncomfortable position. There was nothing ?misread? or misinterpreted about the USG?s position; there was, however, something deeply embarrassing about it when exposed to the light, and when we made sufficient noise they were forced to back off. I know that Fiona is very good at such retroactive justifications, but I am not buying it. Consider the following facts: >> - That document was circulated US Commerce Dept itself to ?selected? people, one of whom was so shocked by it they sent it to me. Obviosuly they are not interested in the US public?s viewpoint, only certain people they think predisposed to agree with them. >> - When they were first challenged publicly on it and approached by reporters, they did NOT say anything about it being geared toward internal discussions ? they defended the position therein. This is documented. >> - Even if it was only for internal discussion, it was clearly marked as the ?USG position for the GAC scorecard.? In other words, it was the position that the USG was taking. If they modified it because of our political pressure, what would they have done if we had not generated that pressure? The point I made in 'that other context' was that this was still an internal document that it was not yet a proposal to the GAC. As I also said in that other context was that, in retrospect and knowing what i know now, I think we handled it incorrectly. I am glad it was stopped, but it think at this point that it could have been handled better. Spilt milk and all that. >> >> That is, ?If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,? meant that the GAC?s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it?d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling?s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board ?would have little choice but to reject the application.? >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> This is they key! In other words, they really DO want the GAC to have a veto. And note that there is no ?policy? here ? no general set of rules or guidelines that tells us what is allowed and what is not, there is no reliance on international law, there is just ?for any reason.? So Fiona?s whining about being misunderstood is B.S. Everyone who gives advice wants it listened to. But the GAC letter also acknowledges that the Board has no obligation to do what the advice says, only that they need to give it full and proper consideration. That is what I believe is the key in the process. > > You don't see any difference between saying "the GAC's position would be that it should be vetoed, and we think it'd be politically unwise to proceed over that objection," vs. "ICANN is formally obliged to agree"? I agree with you that it was a horrid proposal and that they hoped the board would feel pressured to oblige, but it didn't entail a bylaws change. >> >> The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN?s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there?s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> Oh, this takes the cake! The old ?UN will take over the Internet? bogeyman. I know you are reporting on what Fiona said, and doing it well, but let?s at least make some common-sensical emendations. Would someone please explain to me why we should want to prevent the UN or any other intergovernmental institution to ?take over? ICANN by giving all-encompassing power over it to an?intergovernmental advisory council. At least the UN agencies have treaties and laws and the treaties have to be ratified by national legislatures and follow due process. If we have to choose between GAC and an IGO, I?ll go with a duly constituted, treaty-based IGO. > > Really? Wouldn't that have a greater likelihood of institutionalizing all the kinds of dynamics you despise than say an improved, more serious, rule bound GAC? > >> >> The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN?s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they?ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they?re getting worried, as Stickling?s speech underscores. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> The ONLY threat of an Intergovernmental takeover comes from the GAC, and from nowhere else. ITU has been repeatedly rebuffed, and the last Plenipot actually recognized ICANN for the first time; WSIS failed when ICANN was much weaker and more controversial and less attuned to international concerns. > > ITU may not be the only game in town, and who knows what the intergovernmental dialogue will look like if the launching of potentially hundreds of new gTLDs leads to backlashes etc. I agree with you at present, but this is a fluid and unpredictable environment, so it's not necessarily a strict either/or, either the US is just using "the other" or it has real concerns about the known unknowns and believes ICANN leadership is ignoring this at its peril. I think the dynamics of the ICANN oversight are far more complex that this issue indicates, but I was concerned at how often governments resorted to the refrain of the type "If ICANN doesn't do the right thing, I am going to take my marbles and ..." But, I am not too concerned about government taking responsibility for the DNS, the one and one way to translate LDS and IDN names into numerical names (aka IP 'addresses) away, though I am concerned about the larger IG context. I, for one, still believe that the ICANN experiment has to succeed ad that success means finding an accommodation with the GAC (yes without them dictating what happens at the table). And that requires a careful balancing act by the Board and especially by Peter. I think they are doing well and we should find ways to support them and give them the arguments they need where we can. One issue that was not mentioned in your report is the absurd untruth that the GAC is using as the basis of its argument - that countries blocking a TLD constitutes a threat to the stability and security of the DNS (As if the Arab states had brought down the Internet by blocking Israel's .il). I.e We must prevent those uncomfortable TLDs from getting into the root because for individual countries to block them would be a technical threat to the Internet. This is their belated response to the 'keep the core neutral' idea. And is false and needs to be debunked at every possible level. The point behind this argument, as close as I can tell, is that if you let a 'bad word' into the root, lets say .right2chose and then countries block it, you will see two possible effects. 1. people in the country might protest this curtailment of the freedoms 2. they might find a way to work around it, leading, horror of horrors, to an alternate root. The argument explains that if you just turn them down and they don't get into the root, they will go away with tails tucked and lick their financial wounds. But if they, especially if there are a lot of them, get into the one-true-root and still can't reach the world, then they will react and form alternate roots that work around their blockage, and that these might actually take root. And since it is a matter of faith that alternate roots means the destruction of the Internet as we know it, it is this, that is a stability and security threat to the Internet. QED I think that this bit of sophism is not only cynical, I think it is absurd. And it is something I am personally committed to fighting against. Perhaps it is the philosopher in me, but I feel that if we can undercut this basic premise of their argument and once again make the arguments that were made in the 'keep the core neutral' campaign we will have gone some ways to undercutting the GAC argument against the TLDs that provoke their sovereign sensitivities. That is, if you don't like .right2chose in your country, then block it! a. From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Tue Mar 8 11:40:20 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:40:20 +0100 Subject: SF NCUC panel Message-ID: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Hello For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. Best Bill Sent from my iPhone From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 8 11:52:51 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:52:51 -0300 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D760A83.6020506@cafonso.ca> Music to my ears! :) --c.a. On 03/08/2011 07:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > From gpaque at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 8 14:28:03 2011 From: gpaque at GMAIL.COM (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:58:03 -0430 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D762EE3.8030709@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 8 17:11:40 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:11:40 -0800 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A16F485-F504-4847-89E7-107750B8932E@ipjustice.org> Nice work, Bill! Best, Robin On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 8 17:15:04 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:15:04 +0300 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Bravo, Bill, Bravo! Katim will make a great panelist. Muchas Gracias, Alex On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:40 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Tue Mar 8 17:20:57 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:20:57 +0000 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4A16F485-F504-4847-89E7-107750B8932E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Excellent Bill. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: ?????, 8 ??????? 2011 4:12 ?? To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: SF NCUC panel Nice work, Bill! Best, Robin On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 8 19:56:27 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:56:27 -0500 Subject: Webcast/Remote Participation on 11 March Message-ID: http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=484116 No mention of emote participation/webcast. What's up with that? j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 8 20:40:56 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:40:56 -0800 Subject: Webcast/Remote Participation on 11 March In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <91CA221F-5EA3-4EC4-91FD-C68C0254D96E@ipjustice.org> Hi Joly, At the end of the page it says, "Online remote participation will be available and the event will be webcast and archived online." To clarify: We are working with ICANN on the Adobe Connect system for the remote participation. The link will be posted to this page (and the NCUC website, and this list). Stay tuned for more details. Thanks, Robin On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=484116 > > No mention of emote participation/webcast. What's up with that? > > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 8 21:45:56 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:45:56 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Message-ID: <8C7FD9AC-3A8C-4C72-890E-36B3358DE53F@ltu.se> Hi, sorry this reminder is coming so late (i first sent out the memo on 25 Feb) - too many things going on at the same time. though I do not know at what time we will have our audience with the Board, we need to have given them 3 topics we are interested in their view on. > AGENDAS: > > ? Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee will be asked to submit three topics/issues on which they would like the Board?s views (min. of 7 days before meeting) > > ? Board will submit to the Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee three topics/issues on which they would like the SO/AC?s views (min. of 7 days before meeting) suggestions? As today is Tuesday, i should try to get something out later today or tomorrow at the latest. a. From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 8 22:15:30 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 21:15:30 +0000 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <8C7FD9AC-3A8C-4C72-890E-36B3358DE53F@ltu.se> Message-ID: Hi Avri, I'm not up to speed enough to know which topics are the best use of our time with the Board, so just by way of suggestion; 1 GAC role & new gTLDs 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. All the best, Maria On 8 March 2011 20:45, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > sorry this reminder is coming so late (i first sent out the memo on 25 Feb) > - too many things going on at the same time. > > though I do not know at what time we will have our audience with the Board, > we need to have given them 3 topics we are interested in their view on. > > > AGENDAS: > > > > ? Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee will be asked to submit > three topics/issues on which they would like the Board?s views (min. of 7 > days before meeting) > > > > ? Board will submit to the Supporting Organization/Advisory > Committee three topics/issues on which they would like the SO/AC?s views > (min. of 7 days before meeting) > > > suggestions? > > As today is Tuesday, i should try to get something out later today or > tomorrow at the latest. > > a. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 8 22:14:32 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:14:32 -0500 Subject: Webcast/Remote Participation on 11 March In-Reply-To: <91CA221F-5EA3-4EC4-91FD-C68C0254D96E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I'm sorry I'm going blind. That's great. I'll post it to the ISOC-NY site and do an email to our announce list. We now have three extra-curricular events - the NCUC IPC on Fri, the NARALO Showcase on Mon, and the Town Hall on Tuesday. I'm working out with Beau to do an impromptu webcast of the Town Hall - apparently all the CBSi video techs will be deserting to SxSw that week. ICANN have also promised Adobe Connect for that. j On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Hi Joly, > > At the end of the page it says, "Online remote participation will be > available and the event will be webcast and archived online." > > To clarify: We are working with ICANN on the Adobe Connect system for the > remote participation. The link will be posted to this page (and the NCUC > website, and this list). Stay tuned for more details. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=484116 > > No mention of emote participation/webcast. What's up with that? > > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 8 22:53:22 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:53:22 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Tue Mar 8 23:19:34 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:19:34 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D7665260200005B00069771@mail.law.unh.edu> Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP Wed Mar 9 09:09:48 2011 From: ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:09:48 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Interesting comment on the Brussels Board/GAC meeting and relationship between the two entities Nice cartoon, not entirely fair, but nice. Adam From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Wed Mar 9 10:48:42 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:48:42 +0000 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <4D7665260200005B00069771@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: I also agree with these recommendations for our meeting with the Board. On the first issue, I am not sure whether we need to go into fleshing out particular issues from the GAC scorecard, but of course that will depend on how much time we have with the Board and how much time we want to dedicate on this topic. I like Mary's idea of discussing this more generally; we can perhaps inquire how the Board perceives the role of the SGs in this interaction between the Board and the GAC. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Sent: ?????, 8 ??????? 2011 10:20 ?? To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Wed Mar 9 15:00:18 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:00:18 +0100 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <4D7665260200005B00069771@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <6CD1D735-C0E4-419D-831E-D83F3A351EFA@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Like KK & AD I'm interested in the GAC discussion, but there could be some redundancy with the Council's meeting. Can we identify some distinctive points and spin? As a general matter the CWG thing is a bit of a red herring that other SGs have thrown out, control freakery. Can we ask the board if it'd consider a simple short declarative statement that it knows how to read a CWG report and is not confused and move on? In any event, I personally would be very interested to hear how they read both the substance and process of the JAS group and what they're thinking viable supports might be. Were that to bridge into a broader discussion of developing country participation, that'd be fine too. Agree too best to leave the charter alone at this point, although any updating from SIC would be nice. Cheers, Bill On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: > > (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. > > (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. > > On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: Avri Doria > To: > Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM > Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion > Hi Maria, > > Thanks for the suggestions: > > > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs > > I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. > > > On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > > > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. > > On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. > > Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. > > The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: > > A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status > B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. > > This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. > > The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. > > But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. > > I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: > > - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. > - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. > > The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. > > So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. > > a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Wed Mar 9 16:23:24 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:23:24 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <6CD1D735-C0E4-419D-831E-D83F3A351EFA@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D77551C0200005B00069889@mail.law.unh.edu> Great points, Bill - for the GAC discussion, perhaps we can focus on the Rec 6 and community objections issues? I also think your proposal for handling the CWG discussion - and to relate it to JAS and the broader question of developing country participation - is a good one, especially in light of the NCUC event on Friday at which a few Board members will be present and speaking. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: William Drake To: Date: 3/9/2011 9:05 AM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Like KK & AD I'm interested in the GAC discussion, but there could be some redundancy with the Council's meeting. Can we identify some distinctive points and spin? As a general matter the CWG thing is a bit of a red herring that other SGs have thrown out, control freakery. Can we ask the board if it'd consider a simple short declarative statement that it knows how to read a CWG report and is not confused and move on? In any event, I personally would be very interested to hear how they read both the substance and process of the JAS group and what they're thinking viable supports might be. Were that to bridge into a broader discussion of developing country participation, that'd be fine too. Agree too best to leave the charter alone at this point, although any updating from SIC would be nice. Cheers, Bill On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 17:25:50 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:25:50 -0500 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. Message-ID: Hi, I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust > Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST > To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG > Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. > > 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM > > Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, > > We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. > > We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. > > Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 > > To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel > > For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: > http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm > > Most Sincerely, > > Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. > http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fostering Certificate for Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 206424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Wed Mar 9 17:33:07 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:33:07 -0800 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5F773216-2771-414D-AF16-2168C0D8580F@ipjustice.org> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) Best, Robin On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. > > I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >> >> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >> >> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >> >> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >> >> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >> >> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >> >> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >> >> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >> >> Most Sincerely, >> >> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >> >> > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 9 18:23:41 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:23:41 -0300 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <5F773216-2771-414D-AF16-2168C0D8580F@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4D77B79D.3040402@cafonso.ca> None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! :) --c.a. On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. > > It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) > > Best, > Robin > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. >> >> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. >> >> a. >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>> >>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>> >>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>> >>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >>> >>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >>> >>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>> >>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>> >>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>> >>> Most Sincerely, >>> >>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 19:04:11 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:04:11 -0500 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <4D77B79D.3040402@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <13D9FF7C-F35B-448F-A00B-A3C83A8C9B4F@ltu.se> Well actually the argument has been between none and pantheism. a. On 9 Mar 2011, at 12:23, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! > > :) > > --c.a. > > On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. >> >> It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. >>> >>> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>>> >>>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>>> >>>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>>> >>>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >>>> >>>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >>>> >>>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>>> >>>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>>> >>>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>>> >>>> Most Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 19:12:52 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:12:52 -0500 Subject: Maybe still Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <13D9FF7C-F35B-448F-A00B-A3C83A8C9B4F@ltu.se> Message-ID: <7C4C0928-A12B-455D-A64E-D71A2DA10EC5@ltu.se> Wait, what is that? or was it between the belief in the one true root or the possibility of many consistent roots. how's that for getting back on topic? a. On 9 Mar 2011, at 13:04, Avri Doria wrote: > Well actually the argument has been between none and pantheism. > > a. > On 9 Mar 2011, at 12:23, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! >> >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. >>> >>> It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. >>>> >>>> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>>>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>>>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>>>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>>>> >>>>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>>>> >>>>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >>>>> >>>>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>>>> >>>>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>>>> >>>>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>>>> >>>>> Most Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> > From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Wed Mar 9 19:24:02 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:24:02 -0800 Subject: Request for Assistance - NCUC-ICANN Pre-Meeting Event Panel In-Reply-To: <450EE0FF7413444E8CFEE87F4452034403A823E4@MAIL01.umic.pt> Message-ID: <7F44E454-6344-4409-8282-A49DE16C0113@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ana On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ana Neves wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Happy to know that you outreached Katim, who will definitely enrich the Panel. I suggested Alice and Jayantha to Tracy but unfortunately they could not make it. Tracy?s idea to propose me come up as I am one of the GAC leads, along with Tracy, Alice and Jayantha, on GAC scoreboard on the opportunities for stakeholders from developing countries on gTLDs but it is great that at the end of the day it was possible to find someone available from a developing country. Internet should be one of the best tools to overcome the gap and the division between countries and I am fully confident that Internet Governance as a whole will be able to serve its best purpose: the world-wide economic and social development in an inclusive way. I'm well aware of your support for developing country stakeholders on new gTLDs and other IG issues and just wish we had more room on the panel and more time. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to seeing you in SF; please do come by the NCUC event if you can. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 9 19:38:03 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:38:03 +0300 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <13D9FF7C-F35B-448F-A00B-A3C83A8C9B4F@ltu.se> Message-ID: Reading this very kind deed at Jomo Kenyatta airport-waiting to board plane. Please link me up with the caretakers?thxs. On 3/9/11, Avri Doria wrote: > Well actually the argument has been between none and pantheism. > > a. > On 9 Mar 2011, at 12:23, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! >> >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. >>> >>> It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about >>> what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be >>> educated, etc. ;-) >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of >>>> the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya >>>> last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, >>>> decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick >>>> Wildlife Trust. >>>> >>>> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any >>>> to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in >>>> the name of the NCSG. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>>>> >>>>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>>>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>>>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>>>> >>>>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>>>> >>>>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the >>>>> Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those >>>>> foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering >>>>> commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of >>>>> misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on >>>>> the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many >>>>> caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and >>>>> we are very proud of that. >>>>> >>>>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep >>>>> abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster >>>>> parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The >>>>> Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close >>>>> contact with the life of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>>>> >>>>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>>>> >>>>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click >>>>> the link below: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>>>> >>>>> Most Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> > From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 20:55:24 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:55:24 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <4D77551C0200005B00069889@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <021494CE-921F-4578-8299-2F569CEE1A9B@ltu.se> Hi, I tried to synthesize what was said and came up with the following (ok, I added some of my own content too). I have sent them to Diane with an apology for being a day late. Thanks to those who commented. 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. a. From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 9 21:37:24 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <021494CE-921F-4578-8299-2F569CEE1A9B@ltu.se> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144097994F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Perfect! > -----Original Message----- > > I tried to synthesize what was said and came up with the following (ok, I > added some of my own content too). I have sent them to Diane with an > apology for being a day late. Thanks to those who commented. > > 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in > relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community > comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of > special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. > > 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the > substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in > particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be > and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. > > 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting > on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process > recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to > understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the > New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. > > a. From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 9 22:38:31 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:38:31 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144097994F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D77F357.9060406@gmail.com> Agreed. All good points and angles. On 09/03/2011 3:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Perfect! > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I tried to synthesize what was said and came up with the following (ok, I >> added some of my own content too). I have sent them to Diane with an >> apology for being a day late. Thanks to those who commented. >> >> 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in >> relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community >> comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of >> special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. >> >> 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the >> substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in >> particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be >> and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. >> >> 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting >> on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process >> recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to >> understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the >> New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. >> >> a. From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Wed Mar 9 22:34:45 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:34:45 -0800 Subject: NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF? Message-ID: <64307B9E-8D77-4A12-A41F-0A3B978C8EE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I'd discussed with ALAC folk the possibility of organizing something social together as we did in Cartagena, Seoul, etc. They took the initiative, picked a resto, and want to know if any NC members would like to join. Unfortunately, some of us have undoubtedly already made plans for Thursday, but maybe things can get reorganized if there's critical mass. So if the below sounds interesting, please let me or Evan know. Thanks, Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: Evan Leibovitch > Date: March 8, 2011 12:10:10 AM PST > To: NARALO Discussion List , Avri Doria , Robin Gross , William Drake , Rafik Dammak , Konstantinos Komaitis , Kathy Kleiman , Debra Hughes > Subject: NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF > > If you are planning to attend ICANN #40 in San Francisco next week... > > Annalisa Roger and I are trying to assemble a group to do dinner Thursday nigtht (Mar 17) at a very unusual restaurant. > (Purely social, if you want to talk shop that's your own business...) > She has negotiated a fixed price menu @ $40. Please let me know if you're interested; we have to nail down numbers by Monday. > If you know others who might be interested but may not be receiving this mail, free free to pass it along. > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From patrick.reilly at IPSOCIETY.NET Thu Mar 10 00:57:08 2011 From: patrick.reilly at IPSOCIETY.NET (Patrick Reilly) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:57:08 -0800 Subject: NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF? In-Reply-To: <64307B9E-8D77-4A12-A41F-0A3B978C8EE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hola Compadres y Comadres: If anyone is in town (SF) already, how about a meet up for a drink tonight (WED) @9 p.m.? --- Pat On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Hi > > I'd discussed with ALAC folk the possibility of organizing something social > together as we did in Cartagena, Seoul, etc. They took the initiative, > picked a resto, and want to know if any NC members would like to join. > Unfortunately, some of us have undoubtedly already made plans for Thursday, > but maybe things can get reorganized if there's critical mass. > > So if the below sounds interesting, please let me or Evan know. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Evan Leibovitch > *Date: *March 8, 2011 12:10:10 AM PST > *To: *NARALO Discussion List , Avri > Doria , Robin Gross , William Drake < > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, Rafik Dammak , > Konstantinos Komaitis , Kathy Kleiman < > kkleiman at pir.org>, Debra Hughes > *Subject: **NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF* > > If you are planning to attend ICANN #40 in San Francisco next week... > > Annalisa Roger and I are trying to assemble a group to do dinner Thursday > nigtht (Mar 17) at a very unusual restaurant. > (Purely social, if you want to talk shop that's your own business...) > She has negotiated a fixed price menu @ $40. Please let me know if you're > interested; we have to nail down numbers by Monday. > If you know others who might be interested but may not be receiving this > mail, free free to pass it along. > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Thu Mar 10 22:37:29 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:37:29 -0800 Subject: "townhall meeting" on Tuesday 15 March in SF Message-ID: <0E06B369-E830-4663-B386-E59C8FECCB5B@ipjustice.org> http://thepublicvoice.org/townhall2011/ Emerging Issues for the Online Community Tuesday, 15 March 2011 6:00 PM - 6:30 PM (Reception); 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM (Panel) CBS Interactive Studios 235 2nd Street San Francisco, California (Map) Held in conjunction with the ICANN 40 Silicon Valley Meeting Sponsors ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee Non-Commercial Users Constituency North American Regional At-Large Organization The Public Voice Coalition About the Conference Topics to be Discussed The role of the Internet in Egypt and Elsewhere Secretary of State Clinton's Internet Freedom Agenda Proposals to Expand the Number of Internet Domains The IPv4 to IPv6 Transition ICANN and the Role of Governments Speakers John Markoff, New York Times (Moderator) Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee Chair Whitfield Diffie*, ICANN Vice President of Information Security & Cryptography Avri Doria, ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Chair Robin Gross, ICANN Non-Commercial Users Constituency Former Chair Declan McCullagh, CNET News Chief Political Correspondent Barbara Van Schewick*, Stanford Law School Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium * Waiting Confirmation. Resources Reuters: Egypt, a Timeline AOL: Mubarak Driven From Egyptian Presidency CNN: Internet Access Returns in Egypt The Economist: Reaching for the Kill Switch Facebook Officials Keep Quiet on Its Role in Revolts New York Times: State Department to Announce Internet Freedom Policy ABC News: Clinton to Promote 'Freedom to Connect' to the Internet U.S. Department of State: Internet Rights and Wrongs (Remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 15 February 2011) Business Week: Clinton to Support Facebook Freedom, Fight Censorship Politico: Clinton Backs U.S. 'Right to Connect' Reuters: Tweet Like An Egyptian - Hillary Clinton Tries it Out National Journal: ICANN's Proposal to Add New Domains Comes Under Fire Wall Street Journal: Web Domains Could Expand Broadly Under New Plan Washington Post: Obama Administration Joins Critics of U.S. Nonprofit Group that Oversees Internet CBS News: Handing Control of the Internet to Governments - Bad Idea CNET News: To Avert Internet Crisis, the IPv6 Scramble Begins eWeek: IPv4 Address Depletion Adds Momentum to IPv6 Transition PC Mag: IPv4 to IPv6 IP Address Transition Becoming Critical Yahoo!: Businesses Need to Prepare for the IPv6 Transition CNET News: IPv6 Reality Starts Dawning on ISPs PC World: Government Role in ICANN Increases Yahoo!: U.S. Proposal Raises Questions about Control of Web Addresses CNET News: U.S. Seeks Veto Power Over New Domains CNET News: No Support for U.S. Domain Name Veto The Atlantic: When the Internet Nearly Fractured and How it Could Happen Again Contact Amie Stepanovich Electronic Privacy Information Center +1 202 483 1140 x120 stepanovich at epic.org Related Events NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance and the Global Public Interest. 11 March 2011, 8:30 AM. Westin St. Francis Hotel, Union Square, San Francisco, California. For More Information: http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html. Publicity AOL News: Who's Your Stalker: Facebook Scam Makes a New Appearance (Beau Brendler) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Fri Mar 11 00:09:40 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:09:40 -0500 Subject: "townhall meeting" on Tuesday 15 March in SF In-Reply-To: <0E06B369-E830-4663-B386-E59C8FECCB5B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I also made a shortcut http://bit.ly/iTownHall and the designated hashtag is #iTownHall ICANN have promised use of an Adobe Connect room (I think) and there plans to webcast via Beau's laptop and http://bit.ly/isoctv j On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > http://thepublicvoice.org/townhall2011/ > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Fri Mar 11 00:37:15 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:37:15 -0500 Subject: "townhall meeting" on Tuesday 15 March in SF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > I also made a shortcut http://bit.ly/iTownHall and the designated hashtag > is #iTownHall Speaking of which, seems no one is currently using the hashtag #ncuc - so we might as well use it tomorrows event. > > ICANN have promised use of an Adobe Connect room (I think) and there plans > to webcast via Beau's laptop and http://bit.ly/isoctv > > j > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> >> http://thepublicvoice.org/townhall2011/ >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 11 00:47:14 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:47:14 -0800 Subject: link to remote participation to NCUC@ICANN: Internet Gov & Global Public Interest Message-ID: <076BB0EA-E2F4-4A9D-B147-386E13660549@ipjustice.org> Here is the link to the Adobe Connect room for tomorrow's mtg. http://icann.adobeconnect.com/sfo40-ncuc Enter as guest. Thanks Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 11 08:13:14 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:13:14 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Alert To Change In Board Program For Stakeholder Group-Constituency Day in San Francisco Message-ID: <4C98FDE1-20C6-4E4F-8E5C-A95C85780D20@ltu.se> Hi, There will not be a meeting with the Board on Tuesday. This may also have an effect on attendance at our meetings as I am sure many people would want to attend the Tuesday sessions. Probably should be discussed on this and other lists. a. Begin forwarded message: > > > Dear Avri: > > I am writing to let you know of recent changes to the schedule for ICANN?s upcoming Silicon Valley-San Francisco meeting, in particular a change to the planned program for Constituency Day on Tuesday, March 15. > > As a further follow up to sessions in Brussels, the Board and the GovernmentalAdvisory Committee have decided to schedule additional time during the SV-SF meeting to continue discussions on the new gTLD program. This session, open to observers, will take place from 9:00 am ? 5:00 pm on March 15 in the Grand Ballroom. This is in addition to the already scheduled Board-GAC consultation set for Thursday, March 17. > > As a result, ICANN Board members will not be able to participate in meetings that day with stakeholder/constituency groups. The constituency meetings can still be held. I am just noting that Board members will be not available. Staff members that committed to attending your meeting will try to follow through on that commitment and you should communicate with staff members separately onthat issue. > > We ask your understanding for this extraordinary change to the public meeting schedule. A public announcementdescribing these changes will be posted shortly on the ICANN website but I wished to let you know in advance of that. > > Regards, > > David Olive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Thu Mar 10 10:28:28 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:28:28 +0800 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great to hear. The David Sheldrake trust visit was definitely a highlight of the many wonderful experiences I had in Kenya last year. David From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 11 08:49:41 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:49:41 -0800 Subject: coming back on a topic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, I have put some of the info on the NCSG wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Turkwel Speaking of NCSG wikipage, the constituencies should get in touch with me to work out how they want to work on their pages. a. On 10 Mar 2011, at 01:28, David Cake wrote: > Great to hear. The David Sheldrake trust visit was definitely a highlight of the many wonderful experiences I had in Kenya last year. > > David From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Fri Mar 11 14:34:41 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:34:41 +0000 Subject: Invitation to NomCom roundtable next week in San Francisco Message-ID: Dear all, The Nominating Committee (on which I'm the current noncommercial appointee) will hold a roundtable meeting with the community next week in San Francisco. The roundtable will be a moderated discussion between NomCom members and the community: ccNSO, GNSO stakeholders, ALAC, Board, ASO etc. Alejandro Pisanty has kindly agreed to act as moderator. The NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, has invited 3 people from the non-commercial group to the session. Are there any volunteers who'll be in SF? It's an open meeting in any case, so there is of course room for more people. The goal is to inform the community about what we on the NomCom have been doing and how we go about our work, and to take comment on that. And to listen to comments/discussion about candidate qualities, about ICANN's needs etc. And then use the closing minutes to seek help with our outreach. Details are: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 2:00pm - 3:30pm ( http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22185) All the best, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 11 18:37:29 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:37:29 -0800 Subject: Invitation to NomCom roundtable next week in San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5539CDD6-DBBD-4006-9FFE-7C688863BCBC@ltu.se> ooops, i was suposed to pass this on. Apologies. What are you guys looking for: - people to talk about the needs for nomcom in its mission this year. - people too talk about nomcom as aninstitution within the ICANN system. a. . On 11 Mar 2011, at 05:34, Maria Farrell wrote: > Dear all, > > The Nominating Committee (on which I'm the current noncommercial appointee) will hold a roundtable meeting with the community next week in San Francisco. The roundtable will be a moderated discussion between NomCom members and the community: ccNSO, GNSO stakeholders, ALAC, Board, ASO etc. Alejandro Pisanty has kindly agreed to act as moderator. > > > > The NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, has invited 3 people from the non-commercial group to the session. Are there any volunteers who'll be in SF? > > It's an open meeting in any case, so there is of course room for more people. > > The goal is to inform the community about what we on the NomCom have been doing and how we go about our work, and to take comment on that. And to listen to comments/discussion about candidate qualities, about ICANN's needs etc. And then use the closing minutes to seek help with our outreach. > > Details are: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 2:00pm - 3:30pm (http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22185) > > All the best, Maria > From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Sat Mar 12 06:37:50 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:37:50 -0500 Subject: Thanks to all for great event today. Message-ID: I was able to tune in for most of today's conference via the Adobe Connect and it was very enjoyable and stimulating. Great to see the faces of many I only know by their emails. Thanks Robin, and all who participated, and especially the video team! j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Sat Mar 12 09:06:49 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:06:49 +0300 Subject: Thanks to all for great event today. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Indeed, it was wonderful to put some faces on email IDs. Many thanks Robin and team for organising this great event. Alex On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > I was able to tune in for most of today's conference via the Adobe Connect > and it was very enjoyable and stimulating. Great to see the faces of many I > only know by their emails. > Thanks Robin, and all who participated, and especially the video team! > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > ?http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > ?VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > From kramer at TELECOMLAWFIRM.COM Sat Mar 12 18:14:59 2011 From: kramer at TELECOMLAWFIRM.COM (Jonathan Kramer, Esq.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:14:59 -0800 Subject: Thanks to all for great event today. In-Reply-To: A Message-ID: <080b01cbe0d9$05e219e0$11a64da0$@com> As a newbie/first-timer, I was very impressed by the entire event, as well as by Craig Newmark's self-effacing luncheon speech. Thanks to Robin and everyone else for a extremely informative day. Jonathan ____________________ Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq. Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C. 2001 S. Barrington Ave., Suite 306 Los Angeles, CA 90025-5379 USA Toll Free: +1 (855) CELL SITE Direct Tel: +1 (310) 405-7333 N.Y. Dir. Tel: +1 (718) 395-7500 Main Tel:?+1 (310) 312-9900 Google Tel: +1 (714) WIRELESS Fax: +1 (310) 473-5900 www.CellSiteLawyer.com www.TelecomLawFirm.com www.CellularPCS.com Legal Notices: Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC ?? 2510-2521); (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information; and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, immediately notify the sender toll free on (877) 8-KRAMER, delete this message from all computer memory and all electronic storage devices, destroy all printed and copied documents that contain this message, and utterly erase your entire mind. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited, and not very nice, either. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Any tax advice contained in this communication including any attachments hereto is not intended or written to be used-and cannot be used-for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Basically, don't commit tax fraud.?The IRS goons will?get you if you do...they know where you live. E-SIGN Notice: Unless specifically indicated in the body of this message, none of the identifying marks contained in this electronic message are intended by the writer to be an 'electronic signature' within the meaning of P.L. 106-229, Cal. Civil Code 1633.1 et seq,?or?any other local, state, federal, tribal, international, or galactic law, statute, code, or rule. The QR-Code contains our contact information; have fun and import it to your mobile device. Ars sine scientia nihil est. -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alex Gakuru Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 12:07 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Thanks to all for great event today. Indeed, it was wonderful to put some faces on email IDs. Many thanks Robin and team for organising this great event. Alex On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > I was able to tune in for most of today's conference via the Adobe Connect > and it was very enjoyable and stimulating. Great to see the faces of many I > only know by their emails. > Thanks Robin, and all who participated, and especially the video team! > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > ?http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > ?VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > From avri at LTU.SE Sun Mar 13 01:30:45 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:30:45 -0800 Subject: Fwd: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Confluence announcement Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Date: 12 March 2011 16:13:21 PST > To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Confluence announcement > > Dear all: > > If you are interested in Wiki training, you will have 2 opportunities to do so during the ICANN Meeting: > > Training/Familiarity on ICANN's Community Wiki >> Date: Sun 13 Mar 2011 - 09:00 - 10:00 >> Room: Tower Salon B >> http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21991 > > 2. Training/Familiarity on ICANN's Community Wiki >> >> Date: Wed 16 Mar 2011 - 12:00 - 13:00 >> Room: Tower Salon B >> http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22181 > > > Remote participation is available for both. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:47:36 -0800 > To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Confluence announcement > > > Dear All, > > As you might be aware, ICANN is in the process of transitioning all Socialtext Wikis over to Confluence Wiki (by Atlassian). Next up are the GNSO related workspaces (WG wikis, GNSO Council wiki, etc.) We expect this to be a gradual transition with a final completion date of 30 June 2011 at which stage all Socialtext Wikis will have been migrated and will retire. > > What does this mean for you? In due time you will be informed by the responsible ICANN policy staff that your respective workspace has migrated and you can start using the new Confluence wiki. At that stage you will also receive your log-in details which will give you editing rights to your respective Confluence pages. All the informationthat was available on the Socialtext wiki will also be available on the newConfluence site, albeit with a different layout format. > > How can you lean more about Confluence? To learn more about Confluence and the new functionalities offered, please see http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/DOC/Confluence+User%27s+Guide. Attached you will also find an introduction to the basic functions of Confluence. > > Confluence Training Session: For those interested, a training session will be organized at the next ICANN meeting in San Francisco. If you are interested to participate, please inform the GNSO Secretariat at gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org as soon as possible. > > If you already want to have a look at the new ICANN Community Wiki space, please see https://community.icann.org/. Please note that for now you?ll only find the ALAC wikis and access to board resolutions there. To access the existing GNSO wikis at Socialtext, please go to https://st.icann.org/st/dashboard. > > We hope that the transition will be smooth, without any major interruptions, and anticipate that the move to Confluencewill enhance the options for on-line collaboration as a result of the enhanced features offered. > > If you have any questions, please let me know. > > With best regards, > > Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 01:50:37 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:50:37 +0000 Subject: FW: San Francisco NCUC remote participation dial-in details 15 March 2011 In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D3D4490A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Please find the details for remote participation for our constituency day ? Tuesday March 15, 2011. Thanks KK On 11/03/2011 20:55, "Glen de Saint G?ry" > wrote: Dear Konstantinos, Please find the dial ? in and remote participation information for the NCUC meeting on Tuesday, 15 March in at 09:00? 12:30 PST (16:00-19:30 UTC) http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth Audiocast: English Remote Participation - High Bandwidth Audiocast: English Overview If you have to call out to participants, please use the Meeting view interface : To join the event: URL: https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com Conference Number: 6005785 You may log onto Meeting View 20 minutes prior to the start of your conference. For assistance contact your Meeting Manger. The meeting will be transcribed and the transcription available within 48 hours. Please ask the operator to start and stop the recording for the purposes of recording for the transcriptions. Please clearly state names clearly each time someone speaks for transcription purposes. Please do not have more than one person speak at a time for the transcription purposes. Dial-in details and pass code NCUC to be sent to the participants are below. Let me know if there is anything else that you need. Thank you very much and wishing you a very productive meeting. Kind regards Glen During the ICANN meetings, please contact me on my Blackberry gnso at mobileemail.vodafone.fr +33 6 21 79 24 54 ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant pass code: NCUC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Mon Mar 14 02:25:31 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:25:31 -0700 Subject: FW: San Francisco NCUC remote participation dial-in details 15 March 2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: KK, Apparently in honor of ICANN's esteemed COB, we have moved to Pacific Daylight Time as of early this morning. So, no longer PST -- now PDT. ;-) Double-check: is that UTC-based time still operative? Dan At 12:50 AM +0000 3/14/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >Please find the details for remote participation for our constituency day >- Tuesday March 15, 2011. > >Thanks > >KK > >On 11/03/2011 20:55, "Glen de Saint G?ry" >> wrote: > > >Dear Konstantinos, > >Please find the dial - in and remote participation information for the >NCUC meeting on Tuesday, 15 March in at 09:00- 12:30 PST (16:00-19:30 >UTC) > >http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 > >Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth >Audiocast: >English >Remote Participation - High Bandwidth >Audiocast: >English >Overview > >If you have to call out to participants, please use the Meeting view >interface : >To join the event: > > > >URL: > >https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com > >Conference Number: > >6005785 > > > > >You may log onto Meeting View 20 minutes prior to the start of your >conference. For assistance contact your Meeting Manger. > > >The meeting will be transcribed and the transcription available within 48 >hours. > >Please ask the operator to start and stop the recording for the purposes >of recording for the transcriptions. > >Please clearly state names clearly each time someone speaks for >transcription purposes. >Please do not have more than one person speak at a time for the >transcription purposes. > >Dial-in details and pass code NCUC to be sent to the participants are below. > >Let me know if there is anything else that you need. > > Thank you very much and wishing you a very productive meeting. > Kind regards > >Glen >During the ICANN meetings, please contact me on my Blackberry >gnso at mobileemail.vodafone.fr >+33 6 21 79 24 54 > >____________________________________________________________________________ >Participant pass code: NCUC > >For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. >____________________________________________________________________________ >Dial in numbers: >Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll >Free Number > >ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >CHILE 1230-020-2863 >CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 >CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 >COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 >CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >INDIA 000-800-852-1268 >INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 >IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 >JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 >LATVIA 8000-3185 >LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 >NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >PANAMA >011-001-800-5072065 >PERU 0800-53713 >PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >POLAND 00-800-1212572 >PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 >SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 >UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 >USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > >Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a >mobile telephone. >---------------------------- > >Glen de Saint G?ry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 16:58:24 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:58:24 -0700 Subject: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Message-ID: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Hi, With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+Scorecard+March+2011 I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. a. From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 17:28:07 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:28:07 +0000 Subject: San Francisco NCUC remote participation dial-in details 15 March 2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, Apologies for this - I just forward to email the way it was originally sent to me by Glen. The UTC is still operative - europe does not go to daylight savings not until the end of the month. Thanks KK On 14/03/2011 01:25, "Dan Krimm" wrote: >KK, > >Apparently in honor of ICANN's esteemed COB, we have moved to Pacific >Daylight Time as of early this morning. So, no longer PST -- now PDT. >;-) > >Double-check: is that UTC-based time still operative? > >Dan > > > >At 12:50 AM +0000 3/14/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >>Please find the details for remote participation for our constituency day >>- Tuesday March 15, 2011. >> >>Thanks >> >>KK >> >>On 11/03/2011 20:55, "Glen de Saint G?ry" >>> wrote: >> >> >>Dear Konstantinos, >> >>Please find the dial - in and remote participation information for the >>NCUC meeting on Tuesday, 15 March in at 09:00- 12:30 PST (16:00-19:30 >>UTC) >> >>http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 >> >>Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth >>Audiocast: >>English >>Remote Participation - High Bandwidth >>Audiocast: >>English >>Overview >> >>If you have to call out to participants, please use the Meeting view >>interface : >>To join the event: >> >> >> >>URL: >> >>https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com>ss.com?customHeader=emeetings> >> >>Conference Number: >> >>6005785 >> >> >> >> >>You may log onto Meeting View 20 minutes prior to the start of your >>conference. For assistance contact your Meeting Manger. >> >> >>The meeting will be transcribed and the transcription available within 48 >>hours. >> >>Please ask the operator to start and stop the recording for the purposes >>of recording for the transcriptions. >> >>Please clearly state names clearly each time someone speaks for >>transcription purposes. >>Please do not have more than one person speak at a time for the >>transcription purposes. >> >>Dial-in details and pass code NCUC to be sent to the participants are >>below. >> >>Let me know if there is anything else that you need. >> >> Thank you very much and wishing you a very productive meeting. >> Kind regards >> >>Glen >>During the ICANN meetings, please contact me on my Blackberry >>gnso at mobileemail.vodafone.fr >>+33 6 21 79 24 54 >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>___ >>Participant pass code: NCUC >> >>For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>___ >>Dial in numbers: >>Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll >>Free Number >> >>ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >>AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >>BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >>BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >>CHILE 1230-020-2863 >>CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 >>10800-712-1670 >>CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 >>10800-120-1670 >>COLOMBIA >>01800-9-156474 >>CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >>DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >>ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >>FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >>FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >>FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >>FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >>FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >>GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >>GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >>HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >>HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >>INDIA >>000-800-852-1268 >>INDONESIA >>001-803-011-3982 >>IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >>ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >>ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >>JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 >>0066-33-132439 >>JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 >>0066-33-132439 >>LATVIA 8000-3185 >>LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >>MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >>MEXICO >>001-866-376-9696 >>NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >>NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >>NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >>PANAMA >>011-001-800-5072065 >>PERU 0800-53713 >>PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >>POLAND >>00-800-1212572 >>PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >>RUSSIA >>8-10-8002-0144011 >>SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >>SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >>SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >>SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 >>00798-14800-7352 >>SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >>SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >>SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >>TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >>THAILAND >>001-800-1206-66056 >>UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >>URUGUAY >>000-413-598-3421 >>USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >>VENEZUELA >>0800-1-00-3702 >> >>Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a >>mobile telephone. >>---------------------------- >> >>Glen de Saint G?ry >>GNSO Secretariat >>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>http://gnso.icann.org From HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG Mon Mar 14 18:20:28 2011 From: HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG (Debra Hughes) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:20:28 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Message-ID: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. >From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I acknowledge the difference in perspectives. Thanks, Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee Cc: NCSG Members List Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Hi, With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S corecard+March+2011 I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. a. From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 14 18:30:45 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:30:45 +0300 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: Dear Avri, KK, Robin, Mary, and all The proposed Consumer Constituency's (draft) charter principally reinforces our parent NCUC/SG policy positions - i.e. neither opposed nor silence. This thinking leads me to state that we (CC) are in support of this position. Kind regards, Alex On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM, wrote: > Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > > Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > > I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but > after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was > submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC > and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. ?I think it is > important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC > colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. ?I would ask that > you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members > of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > > From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective > and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its > philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online > (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster > in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > > Thanks, > Debbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM > To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee > Cc: NCSG Members List > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I > intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S > corecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom ?yet, but will be working on > that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough > consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. ?The views in this > have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements > and elsewhere. ?The original ratings were done with the help of > Konstantinos and Robin. ?They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > > > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy > From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Mon Mar 14 18:32:14 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:32:14 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <4D7E18DE0200005B00069EC4@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4D7E18DE0200005B00069EC4@mail.law.unh.edu> Hi Debbie Thanks for the feedback! Are there any areas or specific sections that you think NPOC might support? If so we can perhaps indicate which parts are NCSG wide concerns and which others are supported by NCUC, especially since the document uses (I think) language along the lines of strong support rather than consensus. Cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Debra Hughes To: To: Sent: 3/14/2011 10:20:28 AM Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. >From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I acknowledge the difference in perspectives. Thanks, Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee Cc: NCSG Members List Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Hi, With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S corecard+March+2011 I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. a. From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Mon Mar 14 18:37:54 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: <3E54CAD4-AE6E-4E71-B90E-8BB01782F51A@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Debbie, Could you say which bits of language you have particular problems with, and whether there any tweaks possible that would square the circle between NCUC and NPOC perspectives? It would be better if this could be a SG statement if we could get there... Best, Bill On Mar 14, 2011, at 10:20 AM, wrote: > I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. From beaubrendler at EARTHLINK.NET Mon Mar 14 16:28:43 2011 From: beaubrendler at EARTHLINK.NET (Beau Brendler) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:28:43 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Message-ID: <28059370.1300116524223.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Greetings, colleagues... Alex and I are just getting our feet on the ground, having just made some final updates to the candidate consumer constituency charter proposal yesterday. Indeed, we thank you for the rapid response. And I note that Alex has already sent a note indicating candidate consumer constituency support. However, as co-chair of the as-yet-to-be-approved constituency, I have some minor concerns, specifically, items in section 6 and section 11. We will need to confer with the members of our proposed constituency in more detail before we can join in support. If time is of the essence, then, like the NPOC, I would suggest that this be represented as a statement of the NCUC and not the proposed consumer constituency. We need to do our due diligence with our membership before supporting a statement before we are even officially formed. I'm happy to try to convene internal discussion on this here in San Francisco as time permits, but it would have to be after Tuesday. Regards, Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Debra Hughes >Sent: Mar 14, 2011 1:20 PM >To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > >Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > >Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > >I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but >after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was >submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC >and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is >important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC >colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that >you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members >of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > >From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective >and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its >philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online >(underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster >in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the >positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I >acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > >Thanks, >Debbie > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] >Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM >To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee >Cc: NCSG Members List >Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > >Hi, > >With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I >intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > >https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S >corecard+March+2011 > >I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on >that during the meeting. > >Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough >consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this >have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements >and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of >Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > >a. From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 17:49:24 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:49:24 -0700 Subject: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Message-ID: Hi, I have now finished the table. On 14 Mar 2011, at 08:58, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+Scorecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 18:13:56 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:13:56 -0700 Subject: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Message-ID: <3214BB7A-3748-4148-9808-01A6A71B5113@ltu.se> Hi, I have now finished the table. a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 08:58, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+Scorecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 18:30:38 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:30:38 -0700 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: <1A70B589-F60D-44F5-B03F-597F42381B14@ltu.se> Hi, I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing) I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position, especially as regards issue 6. thanks a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, wrote: > Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > > Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > > I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but > after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was > submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC > and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is > important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC > colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that > you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members > of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > > From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective > and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its > philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online > (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster > in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > > Thanks, > Debbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM > To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee > Cc: NCSG Members List > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I > intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S > corecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on > that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough > consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this > have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements > and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of > Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy From HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG Mon Mar 14 21:54:58 2011 From: HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG (Debra Hughes) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:54:58 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <1A70B589-F60D-44F5-B03F-597F42381B14@ltu.se> Message-ID: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB115@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Avri, Please indicate that NPOC does not support the comments related to Sections: 1) 4.2, 2) the entirety of 6; and 3) the entirety of Section 11. The following is the NPOC position on Section 6: For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes standardized exams. Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure these tools are made available as best as possible. Specifically we are pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute its missions and important work. Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New gTLD Scorecard. We need these tools, such as the Trademark Clearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse. While we recognize these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible. Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable. We request the Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations as you move forward in your consultations. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:31 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y. Cc: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; alain.berranger at gmail.com; asterling at aamc.org Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Hi, I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing) I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position, especially as regards issue 6. thanks a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, wrote: > Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > > Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > > I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but > after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was > submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC > and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is > important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC > colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that > you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members > of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > > From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective > and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its > philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online > (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster > in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > > Thanks, > Debbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM > To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee > Cc: NCSG Members List > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I > intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S > corecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on > that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough > consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this > have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements > and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of > Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 22:24:59 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:24:59 -0700 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB115@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: Hi, I have added this information to the web page. I will note during the meeting that you have a minority view on these 3 areas and will refer the workshop participants to the webpage. a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 13:54, wrote: > Avri, > Please indicate that NPOC does not support the comments related to > Sections: > > 1) 4.2, > 2) the entirety of 6; and > 3) the entirety of Section 11. > > The following is the NPOC position on Section 6: > > For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns > Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and > the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations > accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes > standardized exams. Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and > copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. > > We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure > these tools are made available as best as possible. Specifically we are > pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark > Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies > and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute > its missions and important work. > > Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have > to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark > Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New > gTLD Scorecard. We need these tools, such as the Trademark > Clearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in > mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit > organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in > the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse. While we recognize > these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we > need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible. > Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable. We request the > Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations > as you move forward in your consultations. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:31 PM > To: Hughes, Debra Y. > Cc: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; > alain.berranger at gmail.com; asterling at aamc.org > Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new > gTLDs > > Hi, > > I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy > Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as > currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing) > > I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position, > especially as regards issue 6. > > thanks > > a. > > > > On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, wrote: > >> Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, >> >> Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight > deadline. >> >> >> I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but >> after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was >> submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between > NCUC >> and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is >> important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC >> colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask > that >> you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the > members >> of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. >> >> From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective >> and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its >> philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online >> (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the > disaster >> in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the >> positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I >> acknowledge the difference in perspectives. >> >> Thanks, >> Debbie >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM >> To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee >> Cc: NCSG Members List >> Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs >> >> Hi, >> >> With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I >> intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. >> >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S >> corecard+March+2011 >> >> I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working > on >> that during the meeting. >> >> Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or > rough >> consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this >> have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in > statements >> and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of >> Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. >> >> >> a. >> >> >> >> ---- >> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 23:07:16 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:07:16 +0000 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out ? please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. Cheers KK 1. Membership 2. NCUC and new NCSG constituencies ? collaboration 3. Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors 4. Interest Groups 5. Policy and Operation Issues 6. NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC 7. Board Seat 14 ? discussion. From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 14 23:30:55 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:30:55 -0400 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Konstatinos, I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. Many thanks, Maria On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out ? please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. > > Cheers > > KK > > > 1. Membership > > 2. ? ? ? NCUC and new NCSG constituencies ? collaboration > > 3. ? ? ? Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors > > 4. ? ? ? Interest Groups > > 5. ? ? ? Policy and Operation Issues > > 6. ? ? ? NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC > > 7. Board Seat 14 ? discussion. > From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 23:39:28 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:39:28 +0000 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sure Maria, Is there any specific timeslot you are thinking of? If you are attending the meeting, then we can do it at any time tomorrow. Let me know. KK On 14/03/2011 22:30, "Maria Farrell" wrote: >Hi Konstatinos, > >I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating >committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of >candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. > >Many thanks, Maria > >On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis >wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics >>that I have missed out ? please bear in mind that we only have the >>morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in >>particular order. >> >> Cheers >> >> KK >> >> >> 1. Membership >> >> 2. NCUC and new NCSG constituencies ? collaboration >> >> 3. Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors >> >> 4. Interest Groups >> >> 5. Policy and Operation Issues >> >> 6. NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with >>the GAC >> >> 7. Board Seat 14 ? discussion. >> From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Mon Mar 14 23:42:40 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:42:40 -0700 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can we add an 8. AOB under which short bits can be raised. Inter alia I'd like to mention the proposed revision of council proxy voting too. Thanks BD On Mar 14, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi Konstatinos, > > I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating > committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of > candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. > > Many thanks, Maria > > On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out ? please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. >> >> Cheers >> >> KK >> >> >> 1. Membership >> >> 2. NCUC and new NCSG constituencies ? collaboration >> >> 3. Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors >> >> 4. Interest Groups >> >> 5. Policy and Operation Issues >> >> 6. NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC >> >> 7. Board Seat 14 ? discussion. >> From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 14 23:51:41 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:51:41 -0400 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sure, happy to be under AOB. I'll be at the whole meeting so not fussed re timings. Tks, m On Monday, 14 March 2011, William Drake wrote: > Can we add an > > 8. AOB > > under which short bits can be raised. ?Inter alia I'd like to mention the proposed revision of council proxy voting too. > > Thanks > > BD > > On Mar 14, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > >> Hi Konstatinos, >> >> I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating >> committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of >> candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. >> >> Many thanks, Maria >> >> On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out ? please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> KK >>> >>> >>> 1. Membership >>> >>> 2. ? ? ? NCUC and new NCSG constituencies ? collaboration >>> >>> 3. ? ? ? Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors >>> >>> 4. ? ? ? Interest Groups >>> >>> 5. ? ? ? Policy and Operation Issues >>> >>> 6. ? ? ? NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC >>> >>> 7. Board Seat 14 ? discussion. >>> > > From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Tue Mar 15 00:41:59 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:41:59 -0700 Subject: Test Message-ID: Please ignore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 15 04:30:22 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:30:22 -0700 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day Message-ID: Hi, Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: 8:45 CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 9:00 NCUC: Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Working Session http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 9:00 NPOC: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22131 --- The NCSG meeting in in the afternoon 14-18 http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22147 Draft Agenda ? Updates from Constituencies and Candidate Constituencies ? Status on outstanding Stakeholder group activities including status of charter ? Issues before the Council, especially those to be voted on during the meeting ? Policy Plans for 2011 ? SG Fundraising From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 15 04:32:40 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:32:40 -0700 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nomcom in on the agenda at some point. a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 20:30, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: > > > 8:45 CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 > > 9:00 NCUC: Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Working Session http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 > > 9:00 NPOC: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22131 > > --- > > The NCSG meeting in in the afternoon 14-18 http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22147 > > Draft Agenda > > ? Updates from Constituencies and Candidate Constituencies > ? Status on outstanding Stakeholder group activities including status of charter > ? Issues before the Council, especially those to be voted on during the meeting > ? Policy Plans for 2011 > ? SG Fundraising From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 15 10:23:56 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:23:56 +0300 Subject: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN (March 15, 2011) Message-ID: Dear all, The agenda and other details at: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 You are most welcome to participate anyhow you can. Regards, Alex From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 15 15:00:42 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:00:42 -0700 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day - Updated Agenda w/tentative start times In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E94D917-5189-447C-A36E-5FFE245CC599@ltu.se> a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 20:30, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: 8:45 CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 9:00 NCUC: Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Working Session http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 9:00 NPOC: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22131 --- The NCSG meeting in in the afternoon 14-18 http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22147 Draft Agenda ? Updates from Constituencies and Candidate Constituencies (1415) ? Status on outstanding Stakeholder group activities including status of charter (1430) ? Nomcom (1445) ? Issues before the Council, especially those to be voted on during the meeting (1500) ? New gTLD scorecard issues (1545) ? Policy Plans for 2011 (1630) ? SG Fundraising (1700) ? AOB (1730) Will someone be monitoring the Board-GAC discussions? Perhaps people can take turns. From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 15 16:16:51 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:16:51 +0300 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day - Updated Agenda w/tentative start times In-Reply-To: <5E94D917-5189-447C-A36E-5FFE245CC599@ltu.se> Message-ID: CC session will be in Borgia room which is right opposite the Grand Ball Room on Mezzanine Floor. (climb a few stairs to enter the room) regards, Alex. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: > > > 8:45 ?CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN ?http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 > From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Tue Mar 15 17:30:19 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:30:19 +0000 Subject: remote participation Message-ID: Dear all, Please find details for remote participation. The NCUC meeting has already started: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 KK From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 10:24:38 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:24:38 +0300 Subject: Stopping broadband should arrest online piracy - Daniel Castro Message-ID: Congress told that Internet data caps will discourage piracy By Nate Anderson Internet data caps aren't just good at stopping congestion; they can also be useful tools for curtailing piracy. That was one of the points made by Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) think tank in Washington DC. Castro testified (PDF) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee about the problem of ?parasite? websites, saying that usage-based billing and monthly data caps were both good ways to discourage piracy, and that the government shouldn't do anything to stand in their way. The government should allow "pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy," he wrote, which comes pretty close to suggesting that heavy data use implies piracy and should be limited. While usage-based billing and data caps are often talked about in terms of their ability to curb congestion, it's rarely suggested that making Internet access more expensive is a positive move for the content industries. But Castro has a whole host of such suggestions, drawn largely verbatim from his 2009 report (PDF) on the subject. Should the US government actually fund antipiracy research? Sure. Should the US government ?enlist? Internet providers to block entire websites? Sure. Should copyright holders suggest to the government which sites should go on the blocklist? Sure. Should ad networks and payment processors be forced to cut ties to such sites, even if those sites are legal in the countries where they operate? Sure. Castro's original 2009 paper goes further, suggesting that deep packet inspection (DPI) be routinely deployed by ISPs in order to scan subscriber traffic for potential copyright infringements. Sound like wiretapping? Yes, though Castro has a solution if courts do crack down on the practice: "the law should be changed." After all, "piracy mitigation with DPI deals with a set of issues virtually identical to the largely noncontroversial question of virus detection and mitigation." If you think that some of these approaches to antipiracy enforcement have problems, Castro knows why; he told Congress yesterday that critics of such ideas "assume that piracy is the bedrock of the Internet economy" and don't want to disrupt it, a statement patently absurd on its face. (One target of his criticism, the Center for Democracy & Technology, was also at the hearing. CDT's David Sohn opened by describing his support for reducing online infringement and told how, back in 2005, CDT had actually filed complaints against two websites that charged money for access to "legal" P2P music. Reading Sohn's measured, thoughtful testimony (PDF) is a good reminder of why process matters when it comes to IP enforcement.) Still, several of Castro's ideas made it into last year's COICA Web censorship bill, which will soon return to Congress (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has promised that COICA will pass this year.) Could some of his other ideas?such as asking government to bankroll antipiracy research?make the cut when COICA returns? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/congress-told-that-internet-data-caps-can-discourage-piracy.ars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET Wed Mar 16 17:01:05 2011 From: ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET (Nuno Garcia) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:01:05 +0000 Subject: Stopping broadband should arrest online piracy - Daniel Castro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is almost as saying that the best way to prevent car accidents is to go by train (which of course is true). (or as the best way not to get infected with STDs is not to have sex, or....) I wonder how someone (http://www.itif.org/people/daniel-castro) can intelligently say this without bursting into laughs... If I where him I'd go a step further: "the best way to prevent online piracy is not to go online . let's shut the Internet down". Now this would be coherent behaviour! Abra?os, Nuno Garcia On 16 March 2011 09:24, Alex Gakuru wrote: > Congress told that Internet data caps will discourage piracy > > By?Nate Anderson > > Internet data caps aren't just good at stopping congestion; they can also be > useful tools for curtailing piracy. > > That was one of the points made by Daniel Castro, an analyst at the > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) think tank in > Washington DC. Castro?testified?(PDF) yesterday before the House Judiciary > Committee about the problem of ?parasite? websites, saying that usage-based > billing and monthly data caps were both good ways to discourage piracy, and > that the government shouldn't do anything to stand in their way. > > The government should allow "pricing structures and usage caps that > discourage online piracy," he wrote, which comes pretty close to suggesting > that heavy data use implies piracy and should be limited. > > While usage-based billing and data caps are often talked about in terms of > their ability to curb congestion, it's rarely suggested that making Internet > access more expensive is a positive move for the content industries. But > Castro has a whole host of such suggestions, drawn largely verbatim from > his?2009 report?(PDF) on the subject. > > Should the US government actually fund antipiracy research? Sure. Should the > US government ?enlist? Internet providers to block entire websites? Sure. > Should copyright holders suggest to the government which sites should go on > the blocklist? Sure. Should ad networks and payment processors be forced to > cut ties to such sites, even if those sites are legal in the countries where > they operate? Sure. > > Castro's original 2009 paper goes further, suggesting that deep packet > inspection (DPI) be routinely deployed by ISPs in order to scan subscriber > traffic for potential copyright infringements. Sound like wiretapping? Yes, > though Castro has a solution if courts do crack down on the practice: "the > law should be changed." > > After all, "piracy mitigation with DPI deals with a set of issues virtually > identical to the largely noncontroversial question of virus detection and > mitigation." > > If you think that some of these approaches to antipiracy enforcement have > problems, Castro knows why; he told Congress yesterday that critics of such > ideas "assume that piracy is the bedrock of the Internet economy" and don't > want to disrupt it, a statement patently absurd on its face. > > (One target of his criticism, the Center for Democracy & Technology, was > also at the hearing. CDT's David Sohn opened by describing his support for > reducing online infringement and told how, back in 2005, CDT had actually > filed complaints against two websites that charged money for access to > "legal" P2P music. Reading Sohn's?measured, thoughtful testimony?(PDF) is a > good reminder of why process matters when it comes to IP enforcement.) > > Still, several of Castro's ideas made it into last year's?COICA Web > censorship bill, which will soon return to Congress (Sen. Patrick Leahy > (D-VT) has promised that COICA will pass this year.) Could some of his other > ideas?such as asking government to bankroll antipiracy research?make the cut > when COICA returns? > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/congress-told-that-internet-data-caps-can-discourage-piracy.ars From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 17:29:13 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:29:13 -0700 Subject: Assange message Message-ID: The Guardian / *By* *Patrick Kingsley * [image: comments_image] 18 COMMENTS Assange: The Internet Could Create a "Totalitarian Spying Regime" Assange said the web could allow greater government transparency, but also gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. *March 15, 2011* | *Photo Credit: AFP* TAKE ACTION Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget |Start a Petition ? The internet is the "greatest spying machine the world has ever seen" and is not a technology that necessarily favours the freedom of speech, the WikiLeaks co-founder, Julian Assange , has claimed in a rare public appearance. Assange acknowledged that the web could allow greater government transparency and better co-operation between activists, but said it gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. "While the internet has in some ways an ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what government is doing, and to let us co-operate with each other to hold repressive governments and repressive corporations to account, it is also the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen," he told students at Cambridge University. Hundreds queued for hours to attend. He continued: "It [the web] is not a technology that favours freedom of speech. It is not a technology that favours human rights. It is not a technology that favours civil life. Rather it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen. Or, on the other hand, taken by us, taken by activists, and taken by all those who want a different trajectory for the technological world, it can be something we all hope for." Assange also suggested that Facebook and Twitter played less of a role in the unrest in the Middle East than has previously been argued by social media commentators and politicians. He said: "Yes [Twitter and Facebook] did play a part, although not nearly as large a part as al-Jazeera. But the guide produced by Egyptian revolutionaries ? says on the first page, 'Do not use Facebook and Twitter', and says on the last page, 'Do not use Facebook and Twitter'. "There is a reason for that. There was actually a Facebook revolt in Cairo three or four years ago. It was very small ? after it, Facebook was used to round-up all the principal participants. They were then beaten, interrogated and incarcerated." Assange said that cables released by WikiLeaks played a key role in both fomenting unrest in the Middle East and forcing the US government not to back former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Assange said diplomatic cables concerning US attitudes to the former Tunisian regime had given strength to revolutionary forces across the region. "The Tunisian cables showed clearly that if it came down to it, the US, if it came down to a fight between the military on the one hand, and Ben Ali's political regime on the other, the US would probably support the military." He continued: "That is something that must have also caused neighbouring countries to Tunisia some thought: that is that if they militarily intervened, they may not be on the same side as the United States." Assange, who is appealing against his extradition to Sweden on alleged sex charges, said the WikiLeaks releases had also forced the US to drop their tacit support of Mubarak. "As a result of releasing cables about Suleiman [the vice-president of Egypt under Mubarak], the US and Israel's preferred option for regime takeover in Egypt, as a result of releasing cables about Mubarak's approval of Suleiman's torture methods, it was not possible for Joseph Biden to [repeat his earlier claim that Mubarak was not a dictator]. It was not possible for Hillary Clinton to publicly come out and support Mubarak's regime." Responding to a question about Bradley Manning, the US soldier incarcerated for allegedly leaking classified information, Assange said: "We have no idea whether he is one of our sources. All our technology is geared up to make sure we have no idea." -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at FRENCHPARENTS.NET Wed Mar 16 19:44:16 2011 From: info at FRENCHPARENTS.NET (InternationalParents) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:44:16 +0100 Subject: Assange message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you Julian for putting my thoughts in writing and Dee Dee for sending this! ;-) My approach to social networking is one of preserving as much privacy as possible for members, without the disadvantages of anonymity; ie, - no addresses, - no last names, - just real people who are invited to join by other real people. I like our Listserv discussion list for much the same reasons: it's managed by a trusted entity with relative independence from corporate or government interests. Caroline Isautier > ----------------------------------- Frenchparents.net - ( Not active any more) Bilingual online community in San Francisco http://www.frenchparents.net InternationalParents - (Its little brother, growing taller by the day) Social network in 30 cities worldwide Le premier r?seau international des familles fut?es The first international network for smart parents http://www.internationalparents.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Wed Mar 16 20:15:37 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:15:37 +0200 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <000501cbe40e$88e894d0$9ab9be70$@net> Hello Everyone, I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. Thanks. Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 16 20:23:19 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:23:19 -0700 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <000501cbe40e$88e894d0$9ab9be70$@net> Message-ID: <73D23CE9-6750-40AE-B64B-8C505C4B36C2@ltu.se> Hi, Are more of us actually invited? a. On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I?m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 11:42:58 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:42:58 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <1030721007-1300304605-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1168369516-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. Amr ------Original Message------ From: Avri Doria Sender: NCSG-NCUC To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ReplyTo: Avri Doria Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM Hi, Are more of us actually invited? a. On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I?m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 20:50:34 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:50:34 -0700 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <1030721007-1300304605-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1168369516-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. Maria On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: > From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. > > Amr > ------Original Message------ > From: Avri Doria > Sender: NCSG-NCUC > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > ReplyTo: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM > > Hi, > > Are more of us actually invited? > > a. > > On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I?m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr Elsadr M.D. >> Chief Operating Officer >> Tele-Med International >> http://www.telemedint.net >> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >> > > > Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 11:53:18 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:53:18 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <1098888941-1300305226-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-681403097-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Excellent. Thanks Maria. ------Original Message------ From: Maria Farrell To: Dr. Amr Elsadr Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:50 PM Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. Maria On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: > From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. > > Amr > ------Original Message------ > From: Avri Doria > Sender: NCSG-NCUC > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > ReplyTo: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM > > Hi, > > Are more of us actually invited? > > a. > > On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I?m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr Elsadr M.D. >> Chief Operating Officer >> Tele-Med International >> http://www.telemedint.net >> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >> > > > Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil From rcrf at AKTION-FSA.DE Wed Mar 16 20:47:38 2011 From: rcrf at AKTION-FSA.DE (Remmert-Fontes Ricardo Cristof) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:47:38 +0100 Subject: Anonymity is a must for a free society In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8113DA.20700@aktion-fsa.de> Hi, although I am on this list for a long time, I haven't been able to get myself into the discussions for several reasons. However, let me introduce myself first shortly. I was one of the guys mainly organizing the protest against data retention in Germany and coordinating the "international action day "Freedom Not Fear" 2007/2008 and after a breakup still working on the topics of privacy and surveillance, but now for a registered org. Actually we have focussed more on the european security architecture and especially on the topics "Fortress Europe" (the para-military hunting for refugees), police-, military- and secret services cooperations and militarization in general (Germany is now the worlds third largest weapons' exporting country *sad*). But back to topic. Assange is right on this point: the "utopia" of total transparency, i.e. of "everybody could theoretically know everything about anyone", which has also been called "Transparent Society" by David Brin, is in reality a dystopia. Why? The answer is simple. While in theory total transparency would mean equality, in practice there will always be a gap between people with more and those with less access to information, may it be due to financial resources, technological ressources or the lack of literacy or education. So, in practice there would always be an avantgarde or "elite", which has advantages over others. And this would be the corporations at first. Additionally, acces providers and gatekeepers for informational management (like Google) will have advanced powers in supervising and maybe controling behaviour of users. But people, who feels supervised or lack of orientation in an information overload, will not be able to develeop an independant point of view. They will not be able to participate at democracy - and no, simple theoretical access to all available information is not enough. It needs training and education to filter information and rate them personally. Plus, the development of a strong, self-aware personality needs a sphere of privacy. You would never allow a livestream from your kids' room go live 24/7 on the web, won't you? People need secure spaces to grow up, to explore and "develop" themselves. And that's maybe the main reason for opposing the technological "utopia" (or "dystopia") of a completely transparent society. So, I feel that the NCUC should be a voice for strong privacy for consumers against the corporations - and yes, even if their supposed motto is "Don't be evil". By the way, I also believe, that corporations should not been granted the same civil rights as people. Corporations shouldn't have a right for privacy - individuals should. Hm, have gotten a bit out of scope here, sorry for that. Viele Gr??e/Best regards, Ricardo Cristof Remmert-Fontes - Aktion Freiheit statt Angst e.V. - Mobile: +49-170-2487266 E-Mail: rcrf at aktion-fsa.de -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Assange message From: InternationalParents To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Wed Mar 16 2011 19:44:16 GMT+0100 (CET) > Thank you Julian for putting my thoughts in writing and Dee Dee for > sending this! ;-) > > My approach to social networking is one of preserving as much privacy as > possible for members, > > without the disadvantages of anonymity; > > ie, > > - no addresses, > - no last names, > - just real people who are invited to join by other real people. > > > I like our Listserv discussion list for much the same reasons: > > it's managed by a trusted entity with relative independence from > > corporate or government interests. > > > Caroline Isautier > > >> > > > ----------------------------------- > Frenchparents.net - ( Not active any more) > Bilingual online community in San Francisco > http://www.frenchparents.net > > InternationalParents - (Its little brother, growing taller by the day) > Social network in 30 cities worldwide > Le premier r?seau international des familles fut?es > The first international network for smart parents > http://www.internationalparents.net/ > > > > > -- Aktion Freiheit statt Angst e.V. Rochstrasse 3 D-10178 Berlin Fon: +49-30-69209922-1 Fax: +49-30-69209922-9 E-Mail: kontakt at aktion-fsa.de Web: Facebook: Twitter: --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Ihre Spende erm?glicht unsere Arbeit!* Spendenkonto: Inhaber: Aktion Freiheit statt Angst e.V. Bank: GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG Kontonr.: 1105204100 BLZ: 43060967 Online spenden: --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Ko-Kreis (Vorstand)* Ricardo Cristof Remmert-Fontes | Sophie Behrendt Nannette Roske | Dr. Rainer Hammerschmidt *Registergericht und Nummer* Amtsgericht Charlottenburg | VR 28834 B *Steuernummer* 27/659/52868 --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Kontaktdaten als VCard downloaden* *PGP-/GnuPG-Key* From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Wed Mar 16 22:22:35 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:22:35 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <1098888941-1300305226-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-681403097-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Thanks Amr for organizing this - I will do my best to alos attend, otherwise we will work as we discussed. Again thanks KK On 17/03/2011 10:53, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: >Excellent. Thanks Maria. >------Original Message------ >From: Maria Farrell >To: Dr. Amr Elsadr >Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:50 PM > >Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. > >Maria > >On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. >>The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have >>noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as >>well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would >>love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If >>anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. >> >> Amr >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Avri Doria >> Sender: NCSG-NCUC >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ReplyTo: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> Are more of us actually invited? >> >> a. >> >> On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting >>>tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, >>>and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will >>>definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower >>>Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I?m looking forward >>>to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr Elsadr M.D. >>> Chief Operating Officer >>> Tele-Med International >>> http://www.telemedint.net >>> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >>> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >>> >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil > > >Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 13:26:59 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:26:59 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <23252280-1300310847-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1445497499-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Thanks Janice. Truly appreciated. If anyone else will be able to attend tomorrow morning's meeting, please say so. The meeting starts at 7:30am and ends at 9:00am, so it shouldn't conflict with the rest of the day's schedule. Amr. ------Original Message------ From: Janice Lange To: Dr. Amr Elsadr To: Avri Doria To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: RE: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 PM Absolutely - it is a small room if you haven't been and I will order more chairs...if you can tell me the number of folks and if you will be having brkfst - as I will need to "up" the normal order......and no, we aren't formal...:) -----Original Message----- From: aelsadr at telemedint.net [mailto:aelsadr at telemedint.net] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:43 AM To: Avri Doria; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Janice Douma Lange Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. Amr ------Original Message------ From: Avri Doria Sender: NCSG-NCUC To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ReplyTo: Avri Doria Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM Hi, Are more of us actually invited? a. On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > Sent using BlackBerry(r) from mobinil Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 13:29:03 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:29:03 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <1939427699-1300310971-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-115193128-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Excellent again. Thanks KK. So far, we have Wendy, Maria, and Konstantinos. ------Original Message------ From: Konstantinos Komaitis To: Dr. Amr Elsadr To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 11:22 PM Thanks Amr for organizing this - I will do my best to alos attend, otherwise we will work as we discussed. Again thanks KK On 17/03/2011 10:53, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: >Excellent. Thanks Maria. >------Original Message------ >From: Maria Farrell >To: Dr. Amr Elsadr >Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:50 PM > >Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. > >Maria > >On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. >>The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have >>noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as >>well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would >>love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If >>anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. >> >> Amr >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Avri Doria >> Sender: NCSG-NCUC >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ReplyTo: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> Are more of us actually invited? >> >> a. >> >> On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting >>>tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, >>>and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will >>>definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower >>>Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I?m looking forward >>>to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr Elsadr M.D. >>> Chief Operating Officer >>> Tele-Med International >>> http://www.telemedint.net >>> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >>> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >>> >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil > > >Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 23:33:43 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:33:43 +0300 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <23252280-1300310847-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1445497499-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi, I shall attend. Regards, Alex On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Janice. Truly appreciated. If anyone else will be able to attend > tomorrow morning's meeting, please say so. The meeting starts at 7:30am and > ends at 9:00am, so it shouldn't conflict with the rest of the day's > schedule. > > Amr. > ------Original Message------ > From: Janice Lange > To: Dr. Amr Elsadr > To: Avri Doria > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: RE: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 PM > > Absolutely - it is a small room if you haven't been and I will order more > chairs...if you can tell me the number of folks and if you will be having > brkfst - as I will need to "up" the normal order......and no, we aren't > formal...:) > > -----Original Message----- > From: aelsadr at telemedint.net [mailto:aelsadr at telemedint.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:43 AM > To: Avri Doria; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Janice Douma Lange > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > > From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The > meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed > that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and > since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more > of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this > will be of benefit to the fellows. > > Amr > ------Original Message------ > From: Avri Doria > Sender: NCSG-NCUC > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > ReplyTo: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM > > Hi, > > Are more of us actually invited? > > a. > > On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting > tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and > it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be > there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by > and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG > involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > > Chief Operating Officer > > Tele-Med International > > http://www.telemedint.net > > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > > > > > Sent using BlackBerry(r) from mobinil > > > Sent using BlackBerry? from mobinil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poomjit at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 17 03:57:33 2011 From: poomjit at GMAIL.COM (Poomjit Sirawongprasert) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:57:33 +0700 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's a bit impolite to say but please ask them if they can offer more to the people from developing country and strong internet censorship, including Thailand? ??????? ???????????????? (????) Poomjit Sirawongprasert (Moui) Tel. +66-86-335-3900 Fax. +66-2287-2614 Contact Me [image: Twitter] [image: Facebook] [image: LinkedIn] [image: Ning] [image: WordPress] On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > Hi, I shall attend. Regards, Alex > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Thanks Janice. Truly appreciated. If anyone else will be able to attend >> tomorrow morning's meeting, please say so. The meeting starts at 7:30am and >> ends at 9:00am, so it shouldn't conflict with the rest of the day's >> schedule. >> >> Amr. >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Janice Lange >> To: Dr. Amr Elsadr >> To: Avri Doria >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: RE: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 PM >> >> Absolutely - it is a small room if you haven't been and I will order more >> chairs...if you can tell me the number of folks and if you will be having >> brkfst - as I will need to "up" the normal order......and no, we aren't >> formal...:) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: aelsadr at telemedint.net [mailto:aelsadr at telemedint.net] >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:43 AM >> To: Avri Doria; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Janice Douma Lange >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> >> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The >> meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed >> that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and >> since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more >> of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this >> will be of benefit to the fellows. >> >> Amr >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Avri Doria >> Sender: NCSG-NCUC >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ReplyTo: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> Are more of us actually invited? >> >> a. >> >> On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> > Hello Everyone, >> > >> > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting >> tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and >> it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be >> there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by >> and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG >> involvement in the Fellowship Program. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Amr Elsadr M.D. >> > Chief Operating Officer >> > Tele-Med International >> > http://www.telemedint.net >> > Tel: <%2B2%28023%29534-6098>+2(023)534-6098 >> > Fax: <%2B2%28023%29534-6029>+2(023)534-6029 >> > >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry(r) from mobinil >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry(R) from mobinil >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Thu Mar 17 05:18:53 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:18:53 -0400 Subject: Assange message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917EB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> It?s not really ?the Internet? per se Assange is talking about, but the whole panoply of information processing technology once it becomes wedded to networking. One doesn?t need TCP/IP at all to do a lot of surveillance. And I think visions of total dystopia and domination are often as unrealistic as ones of utopian perfection. The Guardian / By Patrick Kingsley [http://images.alternet.org/images/site/talk_box_world.jpg] 18 COMMENTS Assange: The Internet Could Create a "Totalitarian Spying Regime" Assange said the web could allow greater government transparency, but also gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. March 15, 2011 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 17 08:18:53 2011 From: compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM (Mohab Altlaity) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:18:53 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom Message-ID: <881256.23370.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hello Everyone; This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from stopping the Internet in their countries .. I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" in some countries against the Internet activists ... Any ideas? Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 17 21:32:40 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:32:40 -0500 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <881256.23370.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We still live in a world with boundaries and where non-intervention and self-determination are principles of international law. As activists in a civil society organization, and being involved in the development and promotion of technology, the best approach is to use the tools you have at your hands to procrastinate and voice the benefits to live in an open and democratic society where respect and acceptance are part of the foundation, and adding education and dialog to develop the basis to help elect and support government authorities that represent the will of the people. It is important to strike a reasonable balance on how non governmental organizations can drive part of the movement that counters disparate government actions. My .02 Jorge On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Mohab Altlaity wrote: > Hello Everyone; > This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. > I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. > > I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. > It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from > stopping the Internet in their countries .. > I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" > in some countries against the Internet activists ... > > Any ideas? > > Mohab Mohammad Altlaity > Embedded SW Engineer, > VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. > http://www.valeo.com > > Mobile: 0106938463 > > > From wendy at SELTZER.COM Thu Mar 17 23:05:57 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:05:57 -0400 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions Message-ID: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and months. * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose? * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in advance of new URS procedures. * WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? * Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Fri Mar 18 00:18:22 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:18:22 +0000 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Thanks Wendy - this is really helpful. I think that all of these issues are important for NCUC and I would strongly encourage people to participate. I, for once, would like to express my willingness on participating in the impeding UDRP review process. Kim von Arx is part of the WHOIS team, so I would like to ask him if he could give us an update and I think that a chat with the Registry group would be really helpful. Let's try to see whether there can also be a compromise with the RAA (Mary leading this will be the best source to take the lead on this) and the budget issue. May I also take this opportunity to encourage people to engage in any of these issues. Some people came up to me in SF expressing their interest in being more active. This is a great opportunity. Thanks KK On 17/03/2011 22:05, "Wendy Seltzer" wrote: >As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight >some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and >months. > >* Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA >negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to >that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can >propose? > >* UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on >review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like >that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate >registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its >use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts >to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in >advance of new URS procedures. > >* WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who >have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, >who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined >motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? > >* Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy >support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a >public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO >Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? > >Thanks, >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 >Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >https://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ >http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Fri Mar 18 02:05:45 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:05:45 -0400 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <4D8277A90200005B0006A60B@mail.law.unh.edu> Thanks for a great summary, Wendy - I agree totally with your observations and suggestions. On the RAA: the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) will NOT vote in favor of the deferred motion, which is basically a watered-down version of the motion NCSG (through me) supported and that was defeated (as we knew). The reason we deferred is to provide an opportunity to seek a way forward with them if possible, and give us in the Non-Contracted Parties House some time to reconvene and figure out next steps. I'm happy to stay as the CPH's Favorite Person to Hate but would appreciate some guidance from members as to what they are prepared to live with, knowing as we do that the Registrars will go ahead and negotiate without us anyway if this stalemate continues. On WHOIS: Can we have a volunteer get in touch with the Registries Wendy mentions? On the RAP/UDRP review: the initial team to quickly scope out the issues will be made up of Councilors - do we have a volunteer? A call is likely to take place in April between the team, ICANN Policy staff and probably a few others invited for specific perspective (e.g. to provide data on UDRP proceedings). Our Councilor volunteer(s) for this initial team will be able to suggest those names - depending on what the April chat is intended to do, we can, for example, suggest Konstantinos when the time comes. The idea is that the Issues Report that ICANN staff has to prepare to enable the Council to decide whether or not to proceed with a PDP will be drafted in May, in time for Singapore in June. On the Budget - I think Wendy's suggestion is excellent. I can put together a short statement - the closing date for public comments is 4 April. Also, FYI, the Council Chair and Vice-Chairs may circulate a request to the Council to do something similar. Thanks and cheers to all for a good and productive meeting, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Wendy Seltzer To: Date: 3/17/2011 6:10 PM Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and months. * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose? * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in advance of new URS procedures. * WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? * Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy at SELTZER.COM Fri Mar 18 02:16:25 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:16:25 -0400 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8277A90200005B0006A60B@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4D82B269.3040406@seltzer.com> Thanks Mary, I volunteer for the RAP/UDRP review scoping. --Wendy On 03/17/2011 09:05 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > Thanks for a great summary, Wendy - I agree totally with your observations and suggestions. > > On the RAA: the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) will NOT vote in favor of the deferred motion, which is basically a watered-down version of the motion NCSG (through me) supported and that was defeated (as we knew). The reason we deferred is to provide an opportunity to seek a way forward with them if possible, and give us in the Non-Contracted Parties House some time to reconvene and figure out next steps. I'm happy to stay as the CPH's Favorite Person to Hate but would appreciate some guidance from members as to what they are prepared to live with, knowing as we do that the Registrars will go ahead and negotiate without us anyway if this stalemate continues. > > On WHOIS: Can we have a volunteer get in touch with the Registries Wendy mentions? > > On the RAP/UDRP review: the initial team to quickly scope out the issues will be made up of Councilors - do we have a volunteer? A call is likely to take place in April between the team, ICANN Policy staff and probably a few others invited for specific perspective (e.g. to provide data on UDRP proceedings). Our Councilor volunteer(s) for this initial team will be able to suggest those names - depending on what the April chat is intended to do, we can, for example, suggest Konstantinos when the time comes. The idea is that the Issues Report that ICANN staff has to prepare to enable the Council to decide whether or not to proceed with a PDP will be drafted in May, in time for Singapore in June. > > On the Budget - I think Wendy's suggestion is excellent. I can put together a short statement - the closing date for public comments is 4 April. Also, FYI, the Council Chair and Vice-Chairs may circulate a request to the Council to do something similar. > > Thanks and cheers to all for a good and productive meeting, > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > From: Wendy Seltzer > To: > Date: 3/17/2011 6:10 PM > Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions > As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight > some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and > months. > > * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA > negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to > that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose? > > * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on > review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like > that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate > registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its > use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts > to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in > advance of new URS procedures. > > * WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who > have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, > who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined > motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? > > * Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy > support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a > public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO > Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Fri Mar 18 03:04:38 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:04:38 +0900 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <201103180204.p2I24cSX023839@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> > As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight > some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and > months. [snip] > * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on > review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like > that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate > registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its > use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts > to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in > advance of new URS procedures. [snip] I volunteer to help out on this. Of course the person we really need is Prof Michael Geist. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID Fri Mar 18 03:04:36 2011 From: rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID (Rudi Rusdiah) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:04:36 +0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D82BDB4.6050603@rad.net.id> probably it is a cycle or history repeat ... 11 years ago in Indonesia was first hit by asian economic crisis... then become multidimensional crisis... because of protests and demonstrations on the street and parliament innitiated by university students on the street... resulted the Soeharto cabinet was toppled down... the week after soeharto visited Mubarak in Egypt. internet played also some roles... because during the crisis only thru email dan mailing list we can received underground or uncensored news... we also survived because internet gave us valued informations...so we knew what to do financially... now internet is more populer so it must give a bigger impact... and probably wikileaks is the appetizer to all what is going on in middle east... ? cmiiw... regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel (indonesia) ---- On 03/18/2011 03:32 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > We still live in a world with boundaries and where non-intervention > and self-determination are principles of international law. > > As activists in a civil society organization, and being involved in > the development and promotion of technology, the best approach is to > use the tools you have at your hands to procrastinate and voice the > benefits to live in an open and democratic society where respect and > acceptance are part of the foundation, and adding education and dialog > to develop the basis to help elect and support government authorities > that represent the will of the people. > > It is important to strike a reasonable balance on how non governmental > organizations can drive part of the movement that counters disparate > government actions. > > My .02 > Jorge > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Mohab Altlaity wrote: > >> Hello Everyone; >> This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. >> I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. >> >> I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. >> It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from >> stopping the Internet in their countries .. >> I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" >> in some countries against the Internet activists ... >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Mohab Mohammad Altlaity >> Embedded SW Engineer, >> VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. >> http://www.valeo.com >> >> Mobile: 0106938463 >> >> >> >> > > From nhklein at GMX.NET Fri Mar 18 04:29:30 2011 From: nhklein at GMX.NET (nhklein) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:29:30 +0700 Subject: EU to force social network sites to enhance privacy Message-ID: <4D82D19A.8090906@gmx.net> Interesting comment on default internet privacy protection: Companies "can't think they're exempt just because they have their servers in California... If they're targeting EU citizens they will have to comply with the rules." Norbert Klein ------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/16/eu-social-network-sites-privacy EU to force social network sites to enhance privacy 'Right to be forgotten' would ensure users of Facebook and other sites could completely erase personal data "The European Union is to enshrine a "right to be forgotten online" to ensure... In a speech to the European parliament, the EU justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, warned companies such as Facebook that: "A US-based social network company that has millions of active users in Europe needs to comply with EU rules." [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Fri Mar 18 18:22:42 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:22:42 -0400 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <881256.23370.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917EFB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Welcome Mohab. It is great to see people in Egypt trying to prevent another internet shutdown! Perhaps the best way is through constitutional protections that would establish political speech as a protected sphere, and deny your head of state the right to arbitrarily shut down the Internet or other media of communication. Another important step is to promote liberalization and competition in the telecommunication industry, so that the licensees are not subject to the direct orders of the government, and there is a more diverse environment among suppliers of service. Of course, these steps have to be institutionalized by Egyptians mainly, although much can be learned from other countries' experience. From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mohab Altlaity Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:19 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Internet Freedom Hello Everyone; This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from stopping the Internet in their countries .. I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" in some countries against the Internet activists ... Any ideas? Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 18 21:34:20 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:34:20 -0700 Subject: Some pictures from San Francisco Message-ID: <7688501E-58B1-4DD8-AF52-EE09E9090191@graduateinstitute.ch> http://ncdnhc.org/photo/albums/ncucicann-san-francisco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dafalla at YAHOO.COM Sat Mar 19 14:38:16 2011 From: dafalla at YAHOO.COM (Hago Dafalla) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:38:16 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917EFB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <738562.13063.qm@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friend. ??? We in the Arab world and third world the only thing available to us to express our will and our freedom from the oppression of dictators is the Internet. Crumbs rulers began to impose their control over the means of communication and not to allow people to express their aspirations to live in freedom and Alkarimz So we hope the information society to pass laws and legislation that protects the freedom of the internet and not withheld for no reason whatsoever.Any ideas? ???? Looking forward to hearing from you soon. ?? Thanks Hago Dafalla Sudan ListenRead phonetically --- On Fri, 18/3/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: Internet Freedom To: Date: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 17:22 Welcome Mohab. It is great to see people in Egypt trying to prevent another internet shutdown!Perhaps the best way is through constitutional protections that would establish political speech as a protected sphere, and deny your head of state the right to arbitrarily shut down the Internet or other media of communication. ?Another important step is to promote liberalization and competition in the telecommunication industry, so that the licensees are not subject to the direct orders of the government, and there is a more diverse environment among suppliers of service. ? ?Of course, these steps have to be institutionalized by Egyptians mainly, although much can be learned from other countries? experience. ?From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mohab Altlaity Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:19 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Internet Freedom ?Hello Everyone; This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from stopping the Internet in their countries .. I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" in some countries against the Internet activists ... Any ideas??Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Sat Mar 19 23:27:57 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:27:57 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <738562.13063.qm@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am reading these appeals from Mohab and Hago with genuine empathy, and yet some concern. The short answer is that in the end there is no silver bullet, yet there may be smaller opportunities for advancement to be discovered and exploited along the way. We live in a world where national sovereignty is still the central organizing principle of public governance. While we do have multinational treaty organizations to help nations organize themselves collectively, those treaties only have as much weight as nations place in them, individually and collectively. ICANN itself is a relatively weak organization, structurally, which may be a blessing at this point as if it became powerful and simultaneously captured by a small selection of nation stakeholders (at the expense of other stakeholders), it could become a force for anti-democratic power. Also, ICANN only addresses DNS at this point. Even if a distributed alternative DNS architecture were to be adopted, as Karl Auerbach and others have discussed, there are still physical bottlenecks that can easily be controlled by a national government. The network topology is not uniform, but rather it has "fat pipes and thin pipes" and "supernodes and mini-nodes" that describe a sort of hierarchical structure. The supernodes and fat pipes are the bottlenecks, which makes it relatively easy to target those choke-points. The "information society" is not a coherent, intact governing institution like a national government (not that all national governments can necessarily be described as "coherent" -- but the most coherent ones tend to be the most authoritarian as well). So, there is no comprehensive "legislation" that the information society can pass and enforce the way a national government enforces its laws. ICANN in particular can set certain kinds of narrow policy regarding domain names, but the process for establishing that policy is extraordinarily complicated even compared to free-wheeling democratic legislatures, and ICANN's procedural protocols are often vague or incompletely defined. We seem to spend as much or more time discussing policy-making protocol as we do discussing actual policy in the advisory councils, constituencies and stakeholder groups, especially as ICANN is in the middle of a thorough restructuring of these policy-making bodies. Most of what civil society attempts to do at ICANN is simply to push back at bad policy, rather than advance policy that could actively sustain and support individual liberties in a broad sense. Some ideas, now: (1) The physical infrastructure of the networks is as important as any software architecture. In order to protect the physical networks from control by a central authority, you need to explore "grid" or "mesh" networks that are connected at the end-user node level, without any hierarchical topology to create bottlenecks that can be used to enforce access and control. There is a limit to how much you can do with grid/mesh: you can't get across an ocean without either a satellite link or a big cable across the ocean floor, and those will continue to remain bottlenecks for the indefinite future. Also, each individual node needs its own power source, and the density and proximity of nodes needs to reach a certain threshold in order to get it working with any real effectiveness. But, local grids/meshes could be very useful for local organization, which is useful entirely separately from international visibility. (2) Any infrastructure that is critical for business activity cannot be "turned off" without unacceptable impact on the economy of a nation, and to the extent that can be leveraged for public interest purposes it may limit the extent to which a national government can prevent it (I'm thinking about dial-up telephone, "POTS" or "plain old telephone service"). This was important in Egypt, if I understand correctly, once the government had blocked DNS addressing within the country -- it allowed some modest degree of Internet access via Europe in order to get messages out of the country. (3) Encryption technology can be used to protect privacy of communications, and to some extent privacy of identity, especially on something like a grid/mesh network, so that even if government authorities get onto that network they may not be able to get too far with it, without a great deal of "human intelligence" first. These are all possibilities to be explored on a unilateral bottom-up technological basis, rather than from a top-down legislative basis. Maybe others here have other ideas as well. Whatever "information society" is, it does not have control over national legislation, so I don't think that is a fruitful path to explore at this time. To the extent that we have international governance (resolutions, treaties, and enforcement), it is currently conducted mostly through national representatives, respecting national sovereignty. This particular point is currently at issue in ICANN (I don't know what progress may have been made this past week in that regard), but I don't think that one should expect it to actively support the goals of (civilian) "Internet Freedom" in a broad sense either way. Either governments will gain more powerful control through the GAC, in which case it becomes yet another lever of national sovereign control, or else the GAC is kept in a more balanced role with other stakeholder groups, in which case the variety of interests among those various stakeholders often leads to impasses and stalemates rather than strong prompt action in terms of policy in the public interest. Either way, policy takes long stretches of time to be established, because the differences are deep and often have the potential for broad impact, and consensus is not guaranteed in those cases. Lack of consensus prevents movement in and of itself. Not every stakeholder in "information society" is concerned directly with civil liberties and the public interest (law enforcement may have different ideas about the "public interest" than political activists, for example -- commercial and intellectual property interests may think differently about whose freedom is most important compared to consumer and non-commercial groups, for another), so one cannot look there for a unified front to protect Internet Freedom. So, don't look to the "top level" of organization to solve these issues, but dig down into the details and find the smaller opportunities. Big jumps are not going to happen, so look for the smaller steps forward. Ultimately, this is an ongoing mission and the outcome is not assured either way. It requires engagement and persistence indefinitely, because whatever individual battles might be resolved at any point in time, tomorrow is always another day, and neither victory nor defeat can always be guaranteed to endure. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 6:38 AM -0700 3/19/11, Hago Dafalla wrote: >Dear friend. > > > We in the Arab world and third world the only thing available to us to >express our will and our freedom from the oppression of dictators is the >Internet. Crumbs rulers began to impose their control over the means of >communication and not to allow people to express their aspirations to live >in freedom and Alkarimz So we hope the information society to pass laws >and legislation that protects the freedom of the internet and not withheld >for no reason whatsoever.Any ideas? > > Looking forward to hearing from you soon. > > Thanks > >Hago Dafalla >Sudan > >Listen >Read phonetically > > > >--- On Fri, 18/3/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >From: Milton L Mueller >Subject: Re: Internet Freedom >To: >Date: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 17:22 > >Welcome Mohab. It is great to see people in Egypt trying to prevent >another internet shutdown! > >Perhaps the best way is through constitutional protections that would >establish political speech as a protected sphere, and deny your head of >state the right to arbitrarily shut down the Internet or other media of >communication. > > > >Another important step is to promote liberalization and competition in the >telecommunication industry, so that the licensees are not subject to the >direct orders of the government, and there is a more diverse environment >among suppliers of service. > > > >Of course, these steps have to be institutionalized by Egyptians mainly, >although much can be learned from other countries' experience. > > > >From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of >Mohab Altlaity >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:19 AM >To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Internet Freedom > > > >Hello Everyone; >This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. >I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. > >I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. >It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from >stopping the Internet in their countries .. >I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" >in some countries against the Internet activists ... > >Any ideas? > > > >Mohab Mohammad Altlaity >Embedded SW Engineer, >VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. >http://www.valeo.com > >Mobile: 0106938463 > > > > From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Sat Mar 19 23:44:34 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:44:34 -0400 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Dan for a well thought out contribution to this thread. ISOC-NY President David Solomonoff has written about some of the pitfalls: http://www.bloggernews.net/126134 Internet freedom initiatives must be independent of political connotations, run on a decentralized infrastructure, and use technology that is subject to public review by security experts. Most importantly, users must have complete trust in the skills and integrity of the people providing those tools and services. If they don?t the cure could prove worse than the disease. On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > I am reading these appeals from Mohab and Hago with genuine empathy, and > yet some concern. The short answer is that in the end there is no silver > bullet, yet there may be smaller opportunities for advancement to be > discovered and exploited along the way. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM Sun Mar 20 12:09:50 2011 From: compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM (Mohab Altlaity) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:09:50 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <486829.79840.qm@web58503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Thank you all for your contribution .. I was discussing this issue with a friend "Lisa" who asked me if i'm speaking from a law perspective or from a technical perspective .. For me, i think we should work in parallel in both directions .. From law perspective For ICANN, we can deal with that through GAC or something .. we may push towards an agreement regarding this issue .. I believe that ICANN can help a lot in that .. ICANN can oppose some constrains on the registrars, and the registries ... i believe that ICANN can do a lot "if they wanted to :) "... But, even if we have the agreements and the laws, some regime systems will pay pass those laws .. of course the laws and the agreements are important to limit that from happening .. but, still it can happen .. So, we need also to find a technical solution ... >From a technical perspective .. ICANN can encourage private sectors to work together finding a solution ... For me as a computer engineer, i can start a search to find a technical solution for this issue, but i need a sponsor and a wide support ... The social communities can fight for the Internet freedom .. but if they are dealing with a regime systems they will not be enough to end that! * So, I believe, we need to start pushing towards an agreement between all the countries "we may ask for the UN or ITU help" ... * In the same time, gather some private sectors to start a research to find a technical solution .. Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 ________________________________ From: Joly MacFie To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Sent: Sun, March 20, 2011 12:44:34 AM Subject: Re: Internet Freedom Thanks Dan for a well thought out contribution to this thread. ISOC-NY President David Solomonoff has written about some of the pitfalls: http://www.bloggernews.net/126134 Internet freedom initiatives must be independent of political connotations, run on a decentralized infrastructure, and use technology that is subject to public review by security experts. Most importantly, users must have complete trust in the skills and integrity of the people providing those tools and services. >If they don?t the cure could prove worse than the disease. On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: I am reading these appeals from Mohab and Hago with genuine empathy, and >yet some concern. The short answer is that in the end there is no silver >bullet, yet there may be smaller opportunities for advancement to be >discovered and exploited along the way. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy at SELTZER.COM Sun Mar 20 19:20:18 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:20:18 -0400 Subject: NCUC Friday pre-meeting event Message-ID: <4D864562.2000806@seltzer.com> Congratulations again on a great and productive event. I heard praise for it many times throughout the week from people across the ICANN organization. I think it showed NCUC in a strong light to those outside the constituency and got the week off to a good start for those within. Thanks to all whose efforts made it happen! Robin, Brenden, Konstantinos, Bill, Milton, and many more. Best, --Wendy (trying to get my send-from address right!) -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Sun Mar 20 20:51:48 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:51:48 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <486829.79840.qm@web58503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A few comments interspersed: At 4:09 AM -0700 3/20/11, Mohab Altlaity wrote: >For ICANN, we can deal with that through GAC or something .. we may push >towards an agreement regarding this issue .. >I believe that ICANN can help a lot in that .. > >ICANN can oppose some constrains on the registrars, and the registries ... > >i believe that ICANN can do a lot "if they wanted to :) "... Be careful here. There is no unified "they" at ICANN (other than perhaps the staff, who really aren't supposed to be setting policy itself -- perhaps the Board, but there is variety of opinion there too, and the advisory and supporting stakeholder organizations are supposed to be developing the policies). I would not look to GAC to resolve this in a way that you want, because there are some governments that have different goals than you. Because of that, I would not look to give GAC any unilateral sort of power to make such decisions. Even in its "ideal" form, ICANN is not so much an *entity* to make law, but rather a *place* for policy consensus to be reached among various parties. But this ideal seemingly is not genuinely at hand, just yet. >even if we have the agreements and the laws, some regime systems will >[bypass] those laws .. of course the laws and the agreements are important >to limit that from happening .. but, still it can happen .. Indeed, individual national "regimes" will act in whatever they deem to be their political self-interest, and we cannot always count on that being the same as the public interest. >From a technical perspective .. ICANN can encourage private sectors to >work together finding a solution ... ICANN in principle is supposed to be doing this, but the details as to how this works are complicated, often incompletely specified, sometimes hidden from view or inexplicably vetoed by staff, etc. The protocol of how ICANN "encourages" consensus is itself a matter of dispute. This limits ICANN's effectiveness in actually reaching consensus on matters of substance. >For me as a computer engineer, i can start a search to find a technical >solution for this issue, but i need a sponsor and a wide support ... This matter of insufficient support/resources/sponsorship is not only an issue with developing countries! The non-profit/civil-society sector in developed countries encounters the same issues relative to better-funded commercial and intellectual property stakeholders. We're all volunteers here, but some people's volunteering is covered by paid employment, and they have a structural advantage as a result. ICANN has not solved this problem, and has barely even addressed it outright (a few stipends available here and there, but it seems to me mere "window dressing"). This is an abject oversight in the overall ICANN paradigm, in my opinion. It allows the "class divide" between the wealthy and the non-wealthy to importantly shape the dynamics of seeking consensus within ICANN's processes, such as they are. The money gap exists not only between developed and developing countries, but also within developed countries themselves, not least of which increasingly in the United States over the last few decades. This is a sore spot in American domestic politics, and is particularly acute since the last election. We have not resolved this "at home" and it has been getting worse since the 80s. I don't have any sort of ready answer to this problem. (If I did, I'd be famous...) It is important to understand that there is no easy solution to this, and to take it into account as status quo. >The social communities can fight for the Internet freedom .. but if they >are dealing with a regime systems they will not be enough to end that! > >So, I believe, we need to start pushing towards an agreement between all >the countries "we may ask for the UN or ITU help" ... >In the same time, gather some private sectors to start a research to find >a technical solution .. My sense is that an agreement between all the countries (that achieves the goals of the "underclass") is not likely any time soon (partly because countries with different goals will likely have enough veto power to prevent it). I'm not saying not to try, but don't get your hopes and expectations up too high. It will be enough of a victory simply to prevent a bad agreement between all the countries from coming to pass, even better to make very small steps that progress toward useful goals. Beyond that, I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. The technical approach is of course one of the prime areas of expertise among many of those who do participate in ICANN's policy-making processes, and those who share the goals of empowering the underclass might well share ideas and support among themselves, and look for ways to broaden the awareness of the issues and the information about how one might go about addressing them technologically. This might be more likely to occur within particular constituencies (non-commercial and consumer, and at-large) than in the greater policy-making arena at ICANN, if ICANN is to be involved at all. However I don't expect to see much if any of this issuing from ICANN as consensus policy. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Sun Mar 20 21:47:01 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:47:01 -0400 Subject: NCUC Friday pre-meeting event In-Reply-To: <4D864562.2000806@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Although only participating remotely. I thought so too. Very much so. I am wondering how much of a recording was made? I'm already working with Nada on getting the Town Hall vid (some slight probs there, sorry to say) - shall I ask her about Friday? j On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Congratulations again on a great and productive event. I heard praise > for it many times throughout the week from people across the ICANN > organization. I think it showed NCUC in a strong light to those outside > the constituency and got the week off to a good start for those within. > > Thanks to all whose efforts made it happen! Robin, Brenden, > Konstantinos, Bill, Milton, and many more. > > Best, > --Wendy > (trying to get my send-from address right!) > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 > Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > https://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 21 20:03:36 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:03:36 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx Message-ID: http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic read the comments too! dd -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Mon Mar 21 21:06:38 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:06:38 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917FBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in messy ways - love it or leave it. From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of DeeDee Halleck Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic read the comments too! dd -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 21 21:53:11 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:53:11 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917FBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D87BAB7.80306@gmail.com> I've been having trouble understanding the general opinion on this. What is wrong with more TLD?????? This, to me, is good PER SE. This guy (Morris) goes on and on about how .xxx it won't change anything, but, why would it have to change anything???? Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. I'm one to give a whole bunch of consideration to aesthetically-grounded points. But for the life of me, i cannot see how technical people find TLD expansion inaesthetic. Nicolas On 21/03/2011 4:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he > been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a > God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what > names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a > similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to > admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice > to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, > decentralized medium evolves in messy ways -- love it or leave it. > > *From:*NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On > Behalf Of *DeeDee Halleck > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM > *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > > read the comments too! > > dd > > > -- > > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Mon Mar 21 22:21:00 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:21:00 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87BAB7.80306@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think the silver lining on all this is that it does cause people at-large (excuse me) to ponder the whole issue. We should be capitalizing on it by issuing a statement. j On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > I've been having trouble understanding the general opinion on this. What > is wrong with more TLD?????? This, to me, is good PER SE. This guy (Morris) > goes on and on about how .xxx it won't change anything, but, why would it > have to change anything???? > > Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and > forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. > > I'm one to give a whole bunch of consideration to aesthetically-grounded > points. But for the life of me, i cannot see how technical people find TLD > expansion inaesthetic. > > Nicolas > > > On 21/03/2011 4:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Same old arguments we?ve heard thousands of times before. Where has he > been? It?s sad that so many technical people think that they have a > God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are > allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to > me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was > largely aesthetic. He didn?t think it was nice to ?clutter up? the Top > level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in > messy ways ? love it or leave it. > > > > *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] > *On Behalf Of *DeeDee Halleck > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM > *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > > > > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > > read the comments too! > > dd > > > > > -- > > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Mon Mar 21 22:42:04 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:42:04 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D87C62C.70309@churchofreality.org> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? On 3/21/2011 12:03 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > > read the comments too! > dd > > > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 22 00:38:43 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:38:43 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87C62C.70309@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? > Why not? They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more .com registrations. One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I j > > On 3/21/2011 12:03 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > >> >> http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic >> >> read the comments too! >> dd >> >> >> -- >> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org >> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 01:56:24 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:56:24 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D87F3B8.6060601@churchofreality.org> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel > wrote: > > He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? > > > > Why not? > > They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do > have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few > more .com registrations. > > One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the > phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. > > > BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I > > The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for their money. I don't see the difference between that and any other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's instructional information. I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: sluts.com sluts.xxx I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 22 02:18:04 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:18:04 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87F3B8.6060601@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. See http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this application through cost nothing? j On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel > wrote: > >> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? > > > > Why not? > > They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do have > years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more .com > registrations. > > One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the > phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. > > > BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I > > > The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why should > one kind of business be charged more that another. What you refer to as > "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us would be here. We all > owe our very existence to "smut". > > There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good porn is > not easy to produce and those people work hard for their money. I don't see > the difference between that and any other subject matter covered under > copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual property, although it's > not porn. It's instructional information. > > I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, running a > nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other business that some > people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN > becoming the moral police. > > The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx and > that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a test needs to > be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference > between these domain names: > > sluts.com > sluts.xxx > > I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. > > Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want kids and > Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a right to have porn > and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling issue > that helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I > wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx > listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. Charging > more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 02:30:54 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:30:54 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87F3B8.6060601@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4D87FBCE.7090408@gmail.com> Geez guys, sorry about the capitalization, and the general tone. Nicolas From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 02:32:40 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:32:40 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D87FC38.8030107@churchofreality.org> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. > > The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are > represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - > which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure > registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. > > See > http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf > > > As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this > application through cost nothing? > > j > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel > wrote: > > > > On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >> > wrote: >> >> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than >> .COM ? >> >> >> >> Why not? >> >> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they >> do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are >> few more .com registrations. >> >> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of >> the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >> >> >> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >> >> > > The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". > Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. What > you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of > us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". > > There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good > porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for their > money. I don't see the difference between that and any other > subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally own adult > intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's instructional > information. > > I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, > running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other > business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought > we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. > > The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for > .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and > such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - I > don't see the moral difference between these domain names: > > sluts.com > sluts.xxx > > I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. > > Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want > kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a > right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of > a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of > porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws > requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it > moved there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx helps > defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 03:02:39 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:02:39 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87FC38.8030107@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4D88033F.5090500@gmail.com> The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the heaviest operations than it should the easiest? Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the sake of global accessibility or some such aim. I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment (including bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than other prospective gTLDs? Nicolas On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the > .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for > litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx equally? > I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules articulated > that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs are covered do > we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? > > Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. > > On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >> >> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are >> represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - >> which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure >> registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. >> >> See >> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >> >> >> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing >> this application through cost nothing? >> >> j >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>> > wrote: >>> >>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more >>> than .COM ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Why not? >>> >>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they >>> do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there >>> are few more .com registrations. >>> >>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of >>> the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >>> >>> >>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>> >>> >> >> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". >> Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. >> What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which >> none of us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". >> >> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". >> Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for >> their money. I don't see the difference between that and any >> other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally >> own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's >> instructional information. >> >> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, >> running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other >> business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought >> we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. >> >> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for >> .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and >> such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - >> I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: >> >> sluts.com >> sluts.xxx >> >> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >> >> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't >> want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there >> is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is >> sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and >> avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want >> to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But >> if more of it moved there it would help both sides. Charging more >> for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 03:08:15 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:08:15 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D88033F.5090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D88048F.70604@churchofreality.org> I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me would be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm not a supporter of sin taxes. On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining > show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a > public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the > heaviest operations than it should the easiest? > > Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving > first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will > certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? > > Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think > along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the sake > of global accessibility or some such aim. > > I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to suggest > that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one that is > not based on justifiable costs of deployment (including bureaucratic). > If that is so, than i lament with you. > > Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than > other prospective gTLDs? > > Nicolas > > On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the >> .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for >> litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx >> equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules >> articulated that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs are >> covered do we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? >> >> Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. >> >> On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >>> >>> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are >>> represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - >>> which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure >>> registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. >>> >>> See >>> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing >>> this application through cost nothing? >>> >>> j >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more >>>> than .COM ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not? >>>> >>>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And >>>> they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think >>>> there are few more .com registrations. >>>> >>>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony >>>> of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". >>> Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. >>> What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which >>> none of us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". >>> >>> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". >>> Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for >>> their money. I don't see the difference between that and any >>> other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally >>> own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's >>> instructional information. >>> >>> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, >>> running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other >>> business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I >>> thought we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. >>> >>> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for >>> .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and >>> such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - >>> I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: >>> >>> sluts.com >>> sluts.xxx >>> >>> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >>> >>> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't >>> want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there >>> is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is >>> sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and >>> avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever >>> want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx >>> listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. >>> Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx >>> in the first place. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 03:13:04 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:13:04 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D88048F.70604@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4D8805B0.6030909@gmail.com> Agreed On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me would > be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm not a > supporter of sin taxes. > > On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: >> The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining >> show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a >> public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the >> heaviest operations than it should the easiest? >> >> Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving >> first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will >> certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? >> >> Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think >> along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the >> sake of global accessibility or some such aim. >> >> I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to >> suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one >> that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment (including >> bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. >> >> Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher >> than other prospective gTLDs? >> >> Nicolas >> >> On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >>> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should >>> the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for >>> litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx >>> equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules >>> articulated that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs >>> are covered do we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? >>> >>> Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. >>> >>> On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >>>> >>>> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are >>>> represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - >>>> which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure >>>> registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. >>>> >>>> See >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing >>>> this application through cost nothing? >>>> >>>> j >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more >>>>> than .COM ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why not? >>>>> >>>>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And >>>>> they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think >>>>> there are few more .com registrations. >>>>> >>>>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony >>>>> of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but >>>> "why". Why should one kind of business be charged more that >>>> another. What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction >>>> without which none of us would be here. We all owe our very >>>> existence to "smut". >>>> >>>> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". >>>> Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for >>>> their money. I don't see the difference between that and any >>>> other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally >>>> own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's >>>> instructional information. >>>> >>>> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, >>>> running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other >>>> business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I >>>> thought we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. >>>> >>>> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for >>>> .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality >>>> and such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. >>>> Also - I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: >>>> >>>> sluts.com >>>> sluts.xxx >>>> >>>> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >>>> >>>> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't >>>> want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there >>>> is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is >>>> sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and >>>> avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever >>>> want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx >>>> listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both >>>> sides. Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of >>>> having .xxx in the first place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 22 06:30:26 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:30:26 -0700 Subject: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers? Message-ID: <4E52672E-8772-46FF-A050-1DB6EFB636CE@ipjustice.org> We need more community involvement in the planning of the discussions / meetings held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the usual Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff unilaterally plan a number of sessions that should require input from the community. For example, last week in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute session on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff unilaterally organized for a series of law enforcement officials to provide a "parade of horribles" in order to justify less consumer privacy protections at ICANN. When I asked ICANN staff why there wasn't any privacy experts speaking during the public session, the staff member said they "assumed privacy was not an issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously this is a problem. ICANN staff unilaterally deciding what the discussions topics are, what the important issues are, how to present them, what speakers to invite, and what perspectives get heard. The way these discussions are framed obviously plays a key role in steering the direction of the policy development process. All of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we really should have more of a say in how it is run and the substance of the discussions planned during ICANN week is a good place to start. These discussions are a place where the community should frame the discussion and set the topics, while staff merely facilitate the wishes of the community. It feels too much like the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. How can we the community begin to wrestle some control away from the staff in terms of how topics are selected and how discussions are organized during these meetings? Thanks, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From tlhackque at YAHOO.COM Tue Mar 22 10:24:30 2011 From: tlhackque at YAHOO.COM (tlhackque) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:24:30 -0700 Subject: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers? Message-ID: <786342.7036.qm@web120317.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I've watched this list for some time.? It seems that railing against the ICANN staff is a favorite pastime. Call me naive, but I'm willing to believe that the staff?isn't evil. Seems to me that there are two reasonable approaches to having more influence: 1) Identify the?key staff members, form a positive relationship?and educate them on our issues and perspective.? Start by setting up regular meetings; eventually they'll call us. 2)?Encourage ICANN leadership?to recruit staff from our community - identify?good prospects, see if we can have a representative in the hiring/interview loop?- so we have people inside at at the table. Join them; don't beat (on) them...? --------------------------------------------------------- This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. ? We need more community involvement in the planning of the discussions / meetings held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the usual Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff unilaterally plan a number of sessions that should require input from the community. For example, last week in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute session on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff unilaterally organized for a series of law enforcement officials to provide a "parade of horribles" in order to justify less consumer privacy protections at ICANN. When I asked ICANN staff why there wasn't any privacy experts speaking during the public session, the staff member said they "assumed privacy was not an issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously this is a problem. ICANN staff unilaterally deciding what the discussions topics are, what the important issues are, how to present them, what speakers to invite, and what perspectives get heard. The way these discussions are framed obviously plays a key role in steering the direction of the policy development process. All of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we really should have more of a say in how it is run and the substance of the discussions planned during ICANN week is a good place to start. These discussions are a place where the community should frame the discussion and set the topics, while staff merely facilitate the wishes of the community. It feels too much like the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. How can we the community begin to wrestle some control away from the staff in terms of how topics are selected and how discussions are organized during these meetings? Thanks, Robin ? ? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.orge: robin at ipjustice.org From email at HAKIK.ORG Tue Mar 22 11:38:12 2011 From: email at HAKIK.ORG (Hakik Rahman) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:38:12 +0000 Subject: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers? In-Reply-To: <786342.7036.qm@web120317.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201103221039.p2MAcsQ1014017@mx2.syr.edu> I couldn't refrain from making a comment. I agree with you, may be I 'll also sound naive, but like your both ideas, though the first one would be easier to me. Thanking you, Hakik At 09:24 AM 3/22/2011, tlhackque wrote: >I've watched this list for some time.? It seems >that railing against the ICANN staff is a >favorite pastime. Call me naive, but I'm willing >to believe that the staff? isn't evil. Seems to >me that there are two reasonable approaches to >having more influence: 1) Identify the? key >staff members, form a positive relationship? and >educate them on our issues and >perspective.? Start by setting up regular >meetings; eventually they'll call us. 2)? >Encourage ICANN leadership? to recruit staff >from our community - identify? good prospects, >see if we can have a representative in the >hiring/interview loop? - so we have people >inside at at the table. Join them; don't beat >(on) >them...? >--------------------------------------------------------- >This communication may not represent my >employer's views, if any, on the matters >discussed. ? We need more community involvement >in the planning of the discussions / meetings >held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the >usual Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held >during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff unilaterally >plan a number of sessions that should require >input from the community. For example, last week >in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute >session on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff >unilaterally organized for a series of law >enforcement officials to provide a "parade of >horribles" in order to justify less consumer >privacy protections at ICANN. When I asked ICANN >staff why there wasn't any privacy experts >speaking during the public session, the staff >member said they "assumed privacy was not an >issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously >this is a problem. ICANN staff unilaterally >deciding what the discussions topics are, what >the important issues are, how to present them, >what speakers to invite, and what perspectives >get heard. The way these discussions are framed >obviously plays a key role in steering the >direction of the policy development process. All >of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we >really should have more of a say in how it is >run and the substance of the discussions planned >during ICANN week is a good place to start. >These discussions are a place where the >community should frame the discussion and set >the topics, while staff merely facilitate the >wishes of the community. It feels too much like >the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. How >can we the community begin to wrestle some >control away from the staff in terms of how >topics are selected and how discussions are >organized during these meetings? Thanks, Robin >??? ??? IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive >Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA >94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.orge: robin at ipjustice.org From ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET Tue Mar 22 11:45:40 2011 From: ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET (Nuno Garcia) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:45:40 +0000 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8805B0.6030909@gmail.com> Message-ID: also agree. but I think the rational here may be simples, and ICANN has given proof of that approach before: this is just a market issue, i.e., demand seems to support a premium price, so why not charge the price the market seems to be available to pay? Abra?os!!! Nuno On 22 March 2011 02:13, Nicolas Adam wrote: > Agreed > > > On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > > I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me would be a > reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm not a supporter of > sin taxes. > > On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > > The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining show > (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a public policy > perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the heaviest operations than > it should the easiest? > > Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving first > and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will certainly prove > out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? > > Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think along the > lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the sake of global > accessibility or some such aim. > > I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to suggest that > there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one that is not based on > justifiable costs of deployment (including bureaucratic). If that is so, > than i lament with you. > > Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than > other prospective gTLDs? > > Nicolas > > On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > > Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the .xxx > users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for litigation? Are we > charging the domains that opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an > objective standard and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. > After the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like everyone > else pays? > > Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. > > On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. > > The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are > represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - which at > the same time it is up to the registry to make sure registrants comply with. > That's what sTLD's are all about. > > See > > http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf > > > As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this > application through cost nothing? > > j > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >> wrote: >> >>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? >> >> >> >> Why not? >> >> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do have >> years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more .com >> registrations. >> >> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the >> phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >> >> >> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >> >> >> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why >> should one kind of business be charged more that another. What you refer to >> as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us would be here. We >> all owe our very existence to "smut". >> >> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good porn is >> not easy to produce and those people work hard for their money. I don't see >> the difference between that and any other subject matter covered under >> copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual property, although it's >> not porn. It's instructional information. >> >> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, running a >> nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other business that some >> people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN >> becoming the moral police. >> >> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx and >> that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a test needs to >> be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference >> between these domain names: >> >> sluts.com >> sluts.xxx >> >> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >> >> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want kids >> and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a right to have >> porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling >> issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final >> solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult content to have >> an .xxx listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. >> Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first >> place. >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 22 14:18:28 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:18:28 -0300 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917FBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D88A1A4.3090709@cafonso.ca> BTW, my view on Sadowsky's plea against .xxx is that it was very well elaborated, a good script to use in analysing several of Icann's processes, but the .xxx case as it stands now is not one of them -- he missed the central specific points defended very explicitly by Rita, Crocker and others. I am still with the impression that, deeply inside, many of the people who fought against it did so for moral reasons covered by "objective" logical arguments. --c.a. On 03/21/2011 05:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in messy ways - love it or leave it. > > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of DeeDee Halleck > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > read the comments too! > dd > > > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > > From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 14:56:23 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:56:23 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D88AA87.3020107@churchofreality.org> I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement costs. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why would you think they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx where they would be caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a child molester is with an xxx domain. Does anyone thing they are going to register child-molester.xxx? The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are as different as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking for child molester I would think that something like .info, which spammers seem to like, would be the place to go and it would only be promoted withing the group. A .xxx is like inviting the cops to your house. So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money. The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming the "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a slippery slope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist (Atheist) immoral? In many countries I would be executed for my non-belief because I choose reality first. On 3/22/2011 3:45 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote: > also agree. > > but I think the rational here may be simples, and ICANN has given > proof of that approach before: this is just a market issue, i.e., > demand seems to support a premium price, so why not charge the price > the market seems to be available to pay? > > Abra?os!!! > > Nuno > > On 22 March 2011 02:13, Nicolas Adam > wrote: > > Agreed > > > On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >> I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me >> would be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm >> not a supporter of sin taxes. >> >> On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: >>> The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a >>> self-sustaining show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for >>> that matter, from a public policy perspective), shouldn't it >>> cost more to deploy the heaviest operations than it should the >>> easiest? >>> >>> Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses >>> moving first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear >>> what will certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? >>> >>> Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to >>> think along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, >>> for the sake of global accessibility or some such aim. >>> >>> I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to >>> suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, >>> one that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment >>> (including bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. >>> >>> Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be >>> higher than other prospective gTLDs? >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >>>> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why >>>> should the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge >>>> everyone for litigation? Are we charging the domains that >>>> opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard >>>> and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. After >>>> the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like >>>> everyone else pays? >>>> >>>> Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. >>>> >>>> On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>>> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >>>>> >>>>> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that >>>>> you are represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible >>>>> standards - which at the same time it is up to the registry to >>>>> make sure registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all >>>>> about. >>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of >>>>> pushing this application through cost nothing? >>>>> >>>>> j >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost >>>>>> more than .COM ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not? >>>>>> >>>>>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. >>>>>> And they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, >>>>>> I think there are few more .com registrations. >>>>>> >>>>>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the >>>>>> irony of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied >>>>>> to smut. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board >>>>>> vote at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but >>>>> "why". Why should one kind of business be charged more >>>>> that another. What you refer to as "smut" is human >>>>> reproduction without which none of us would be here. We >>>>> all owe our very existence to "smut". >>>>> >>>>> There is indeed intellectual property associated with >>>>> "smut". Good porn is not easy to produce and those people >>>>> work hard for their money. I don't see the difference >>>>> between that and any other subject matter covered under >>>>> copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual >>>>> property, although it's not porn. It's instructional >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for >>>>> oil, running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or >>>>> any other business that some people disagree on moral >>>>> issues. And I thought we were against ICANN becoming the >>>>> moral police. >>>>> >>>>> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging >>>>> more for .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort >>>>> of reality and such a test needs to be applied to other >>>>> similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference >>>>> between these domain names: >>>>> >>>>> sluts.com >>>>> sluts.xxx >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation >>>>> argument. >>>>> >>>>> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people >>>>> don't want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I >>>>> think there is a right to have porn and a right to avoid >>>>> porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling issue that >>>>> helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final >>>>> solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult >>>>> content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it moved >>>>> there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx >>>>> helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>>>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>>>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>>>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Tue Mar 22 15:16:39 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:16:39 +0900 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D88AA87.3020107@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <201103221416.p2MEGdj1007004@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> > I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement cost= > s. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why would you t= > hink they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx where they would be = > caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a child molester is with an x= > xx domain. Does anyone thing they are going to register child-molester.xxx? > > The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are as dif= > ferent as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking for child mole= > ster I would think that something like .info, which spammers seem to like, = > would be the place to go and it would only be promoted withing the group. A= > .xxx is like inviting the cops to your house. > > So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money. > > The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming the = > "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a slippery sl= > ope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist (Atheist) immoral? In man= > y countries I would be executed for my non-belief because I choose reality = > first. Will the income stream from .xxx be put towards general efforts to attacking the availability of sex abuse images online, not just within .xxx? Or is it proposed that it is only within .xxx that this activity will take place? -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Tue Mar 22 17:09:07 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:09:07 +0200 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran Message-ID: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Now that I have returned home from the San Francisco meeting and started settling back in my work (as well as shake off some of the jet-lag), I would like to take the opportunity to send out a thank you. This was my third meeting, and by far my most successful one (as per my estimates at least). Really glad to have met some of our members who were present and put some faces to the names I've been seeing on this mail list, participate in our working session last Tuesday, and most importantly finally feel like I am truly part of a constituency group within the ICANN community. There's nowhere in the community I would rather belong than in NCUC, and am truly grateful to the warm welcome I received from our members present in San Fran. It meant a lot to me. Having said that, I will follow up as promised on the task of documenting issues related to the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names from last year and pass along whatever I accumulate. On a more personal note, I would also like to pursue ideas on developing some sort of a capacity building program or plan for NCUC members who might need help easing-in to the various issues being tackled by NCUC; whether they be new members or older ones who have not been active. I personally believe that good in-reach into our existing member roster is just as important as our outreach efforts, and that both will be futile unless members are encouraged and supported to participate. I know that we are a constituency of volunteers, and an initiative and effort should be shown by members to actively participate, but take it from me, it is not that easy. I believe we have a duty as the only exclusive representation of non-commercial to promote and foster non-commercial representation in the ICANN community, and I also believe this is of equal importance to tackling the various issues that matter to us. Out of the 1,700 participants in San Fran, I wonder how many were non-comm? I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their intent to do so soon. And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don't hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. Thanks. Amr Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 22 17:25:19 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:25:19 -0400 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Message-ID: <560EC845-0B10-46F4-93F0-43F3B08E056C@ltu.se> On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don?t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some information about who and what we are. a. From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 17:43:31 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:43:31 +0300 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for > attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow > informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their > intent to do so soon. It was pleasure to be there, thanks for inviting us. > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met > President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was > instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that > it would be great if he joined (although don?t hold your breath that he > will). I hope this meets with general approval. Good on ya! If he joins us many domain name policy parameters will definitely change. From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Tue Mar 22 17:45:38 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:45:38 -0400 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <560EC845-0B10-46F4-93F0-43F3B08E056C@ltu.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met > President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was > instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that > it would be great if he joined (although don?t hold your breath that he > will). I hope this meets with general approval. > > > I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some > information about who and what we are. > Agree. And this need not be more than a simple one-page letter which I've started - http://piratepad.net/12wRNGqtR2 - that contains a call to action to join NCUC. Anyone should feel free to edit as they see fit. Should we try to follow up with any new potential members that we met in SF by end of next week? > > a. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 22 17:59:23 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:59:23 -0700 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Message-ID: Thank you so much, Amr! NCUC was very lucky to have your input and participation - especially during the constituency meeting. And we really appreciate your outreach with Clinton and suggestions for better incorporating the existing membership base. A compilation of information on the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names would be an extremely valuable resource at this point. Thank you again! All best, Robin On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Now that I have returned home from the San Francisco meeting and started settling back in my work (as well as shake off some of the jet-lag), I would like to take the opportunity to send out a thank you. This was my third meeting, and by far my most successful one (as per my estimates at least). Really glad to have met some of our members who were present and put some faces to the names I?ve been seeing on this mail list, participate in our working session last Tuesday, and most importantly finally feel like I am truly part of a constituency group within the ICANN community. There?s nowhere in the community I would rather belong than in NCUC, and am truly grateful to the warm welcome I received from our members present in San Fran. It meant a lot to me. > > Having said that, I will follow up as promised on the task of documenting issues related to the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names from last year and pass along whatever I accumulate. On a more personal note, I would also like to pursue ideas on developing some sort of a capacity building program or plan for NCUC members who might need help easing-in to the various issues being tackled by NCUC; whether they be new members or older ones who have not been active. I personally believe that good in-reach into our existing member roster is just as important as our outreach efforts, and that both will be futile unless members are encouraged and supported to participate. I know that we are a constituency of volunteers, and an initiative and effort should be shown by members to actively participate, but take it from me, it is not that easy. I believe we have a duty as the only exclusive representation of non-commercial to promote and foster non-commercial representation in the ICANN community, and I also believe this is of equal importance to tackling the various issues that matter to us. Out of the 1,700 participants in San Fran, I wonder how many were non-comm? > > I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their intent to do so soon. > > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don?t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Tue Mar 22 18:20:04 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:20:04 +0000 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you Amr for your participation, comments and contributions throughout the ICANN week. We are indeed very lucky to have you join us and I am very much looking forward to working with you on getting the information on the DHS/ICE domain name seizures. Thanks for spreading the message to Clinton and for encouraging other members to join. Thank you again! All the best KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: ?????, 22 ??????? 2011 4:59 ?? To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Great Meeting at San Fran Thank you so much, Amr! NCUC was very lucky to have your input and participation - especially during the constituency meeting. And we really appreciate your outreach with Clinton and suggestions for better incorporating the existing membership base. A compilation of information on the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names would be an extremely valuable resource at this point. Thank you again! All best, Robin On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Now that I have returned home from the San Francisco meeting and started settling back in my work (as well as shake off some of the jet-lag), I would like to take the opportunity to send out a thank you. This was my third meeting, and by far my most successful one (as per my estimates at least). Really glad to have met some of our members who were present and put some faces to the names I've been seeing on this mail list, participate in our working session last Tuesday, and most importantly finally feel like I am truly part of a constituency group within the ICANN community. There's nowhere in the community I would rather belong than in NCUC, and am truly grateful to the warm welcome I received from our members present in San Fran. It meant a lot to me. Having said that, I will follow up as promised on the task of documenting issues related to the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names from last year and pass along whatever I accumulate. On a more personal note, I would also like to pursue ideas on developing some sort of a capacity building program or plan for NCUC members who might need help easing-in to the various issues being tackled by NCUC; whether they be new members or older ones who have not been active. I personally believe that good in-reach into our existing member roster is just as important as our outreach efforts, and that both will be futile unless members are encouraged and supported to participate. I know that we are a constituency of volunteers, and an initiative and effort should be shown by members to actively participate, but take it from me, it is not that easy. I believe we have a duty as the only exclusive representation of non-commercial to promote and foster non-commercial representation in the ICANN community, and I also believe this is of equal importance to tackling the various issues that matter to us. Out of the 1,700 participants in San Fran, I wonder how many were non-comm? I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their intent to do so soon. And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don't hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. Thanks. Amr Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 18:22:55 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:22:55 -0700 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D88DAEF.4040409@churchofreality.org> I too had a great time. It was great meeting all of you too. From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 22 18:24:59 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:24:59 -0700 Subject: CDT policy post on domain name seizures Message-ID: <0BCEEBA9-1E67-42BE-BD16-40C2E134B98B@ipjustice.org> Below is a timely and informative policy post from NCUC member, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) on Internet domain name seizures. Begin forwarded message: > From: Mark Stanley > Date: March 22, 2011 8:39:47 AM PDT > To: "Policy Posts" > Subject: [Policy Posts]CDT Policy Post 17.4: Domain-Name Tactics To Enforce Copyright > > A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties > Online from The Center For Democracy and Technology > > This Policy Post is online: http://cdt.org/policy/cdt-warns-against-widespread-use-domain-name-tactics-enforce-copyright > > CDT Warns Against Widespread Use of Domain-Name Tactics To Enforce Copyright > > (1) CDT Warns Against Widespread Use of Domain-Name Tactics to Enforce Copyright > (2) Domain-name seizure and blocking will be ineffective at reducing infringement > (3) Collateral Impact > (4) Principles for a Sound Policy Approach > __________________________________________ > > 1) CDT Warns Against Widespread Use of Domain-Name Tactics to Enforce Copyright > > A major current topic in the online copyright debate is what to do about "rogue websites" ? that is, websites that exist for the purpose of enabling illegal activity, especially copyright infringement and counterfeiting. One prominent idea lately is to have law enforcement authorities seize or block the domain names of such websites. Since late June 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice have relied on civil forfeiture authority, which allows for seizure of property believed to have been used in commission of a crime, to execute seizure warrants for over 100 domain names. Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee developed a bill (S. 3804, the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" or "COICA)" which would have codified and expanded this practice. Similar legislation is likely to return in the current Congress, as both the House and Senate held hearings on the "rogue website" problem in recent weeks. > > CDT supports the goal of reducing online infringement. Large-scale copyright infringement undermines First Amendment values in promoting expression and threatens the growth of new media and e-commerce. Websites whose main purpose and activity is to enable and promote infringement are true "bad actors" and deserve to be the target of law enforcement. > > Nonetheless, CDT believes that legislation that would codify and encourage large-scale reliance on domain names as an enforcement mechanism would be a serious mistake. Meaningful law enforcement in this area requires, above all, catching and punishing actual criminals who operate "rogue sites." By contrast, focusing on domain names would prove ineffective at achieving any lasting reduction in infringement. At the same time, the domain-name approach would risk significant collateral damage, > > CDT explained its concerns in a written statement it submitted for the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held in February, and again last week in testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. > > CDT Policy Post on Copyright Enforcement Trend: http://www.cdt.org/policy/copyright-enforcement-policies-could-have-broad-impact > > CDT Comments to Department of Commerce's Internet Task Force Copyright Inquiry: http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT%20Comments%20to%20NTIA%20Copyright%20Task%20Force.pdf > > CDT Statement for Senate Hearing: http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/20110216_rogue_sites_statement.pdf > > CDT Testimony for House Hearing: http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/20110314_sohn_testimony.pdf > > __________________________________________ > > 2) Domain-name seizure and blocking will be ineffective at reducing infringement > > Domain-name seizure and blocking can be easily circumvented, and thus will have little ultimate effect on online infringement. > > The DNS performs a relatively simple function: translating text URLs (like www.cdt.org) into machine-readable IP addresses (like 72.32.6.120). Seizing a domain name involves ordering the relevant registrar or registry to effectively revoke the websites' domain name registration, thus preventing the site from continuing to use that particular name. Blocking a domain name involves ordering a domain name lookup service (for most users, a function performed by their ISP) not to respond to any user request to look up the IP address associated with that name. > > Significantly, neither seizing nor blocking a website's domain name removes the site ? or any infringing content ? from the Internet. The site and all its contents remain connected at the same IP address. And there are numerous ways a targeted site may still be reached. > > In the case of a domain name seizure, the site's operator could simply register a new domain name for the site. For example, most of the sports-streaming sites connected to ten domains ICE seized in February quickly reappeared and are easily located at new domains. Alternatively or in addition, the site's operators could publicize its IP address, which users could then bookmark in lieu of saving or remembering the domain name. Or a site's operators could distribute a small browser plug-in or other piece of software to allow users to retrieve the IP addresses of the operators' servers. Such simple tools would make the process of following a site around the web virtually automatic. > > The same tactics could be used to evade domain name blocking. In addition, a site's users could easily switch DNS-lookup providers to avoid blocking orders. Savvy users could set up local DNS resolvers on their own computers, thus avoiding any DNS servers that have been ordered to block. Alternatively, third-party public DNS servers are widely available, and more would inevitably spring up outside the United States to avoid being subject to blocking orders. For Internet users, pointing DNS requests to these unfiltered servers would be simply a matter of updating a single parameter in their operating systems' Internet settings. For users to whom this seems complicated, software tools could easily automate the process. > > All of these circumvention techniques are likely to occur if domain-name seizure and blocking become widespread. Infringement sites have a highly motivated and relatively savvy user base, and word will spread quickly as to how best to circumvent any blocking. The workarounds themselves are trivial and would quickly go viral, ultimately rendering the domain-name approach almost entirely ineffective. > > __________________________________________ > > 3) Collateral Impact > > The seizure and blocking of domain names would carry a number of collateral risks and costs. > > Overbreadth / Impact on Lawful Speech > > First, widespread use of such tactics would almost certainly affect lawful speech. For example, when domain-name tactics are used against websites with a mix of lawful and unlawful content, all the content is affected; there is no way to narrowly target the unlawful content only. Last year's COICA legislation, despite its purported focus on websites "dedicated to infringing activities," defined that phrase broadly enough to apply to multipurpose sites featuring a wide variety of content. Indeed, under the bill as drafted, user-generated content websites could be subject to domain-name seizure or blocking if even a small minority of users posted infringing material. > > Moreover, a domain name frequently encompasses much more than just an individual website. Many web-hosting services are constructed in a way such that thousands of individual sites, maintained by thousands of individuals, are hosted at subdomains sharing a single parent domain name. Non-web hosts, such as email and instant messaging servers, often share the domain as well. All of this speech stands to be affected if the domain name is seized or blocked. Indeed, a concrete example occurred in February, when ICE mistakenly seized the domain "mooo.com," which turned out to be a parent domain to thousands of innocent and unrelated subdomains. As a result, many small, legitimate websites had their traffic redirected to an ICE banner announcing that the domain had been seized for violating child pornography laws. > > The risk of sweeping in non-infringing content is exacerbated when seizure or blocking orders are issued without a full adversarial hearing, as is the case under both the current ICE seizure process and the proposed COICA legislation. Large-scale use of a one-sided process, under which domain name owners get no opportunity to defend themselves before their names are blocked or seized, creates significant potential for mistakes or overaggressive action. Again, several examples from the recent ICE seizures highlight this risk: the seized sites include several music blogs who claim they had obtained the allegedly infringing material directly from rightsholders for promotional purposes, as well as a Spanish site that has twice been found non-infringing by Spanish courts. > > The potential for overbreadth raises serious constitutional questions regarding the degree to which domain-name seizure and blocking can be narrowly tailored to affect infringing content. Moreover, domain-name seizure and blocking targets an instrumentality of speech (domain names) and creates a prior restraint, effectively trying to censor all future activity at a domain based on illegal activity in the past. Especially given how ineffective domain-name focused enforcement measures are likely be in achieving their stated goal, as discussed above, the approach could be vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge. > > Technical Impact / Cybersecurity > > Widespread seizing and blocking of domain names would present a number of technical challenges that could have an impact on the Internet's reliability, security, and performance. > > For ISPs, redirecting users to a page reading "this website blocked due to infringement" could conflict with implementations of the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC), a security improvement just now rolling out after over 10 years of development. A DNS resolver using DNSSEC simply is not able to give a cryptographically signed response that is false. > > Users' efforts to circumvent blocking orders may have technical and cybersecurity consequences as well. The more ISPs and other major DNS providers are required to block lookup requests for websites that users want to reach, the more users will switch to independent, non-ISP DNS servers. But ISPs' DNS servers offer a crucial window into network usage; migration away from these servers would undermine ISPs' ability to observe and track botnet activity and other cybersecurity threats on their networks. In addition, it would put users at the mercy of potentially unscrupulous foreign DNS servers, which could redirect user traffic for phishing or botnet purposes. It could also undermine the effectiveness of content delivery networks (CDNs), which often rely on the approximate location of users' DNS lookup servers (based on IP address) to choose the best location from which to deliver content. > > International Impact / Precedent > > Enshrining domain-name seizure and blocking in a new statute would invite similar action from other countries, harming U.S. interests and undercutting diplomatic efforts to promote global Internet freedom. > > Following the U.S. example, other countries could try to seize or block the domain names of U.S. websites that are lawful here but that are asserted to violate some foreign law. In the case of domain-name seizure, such action could render the targeted domain inaccessible for the entire world. Moreover, this risk is not limited to repressive regimes. The scope of protection provided by the First Amendment remains the most expansive in the world, and speech protected in the United States remains proscribable in many other democratic countries. Local access to such speech remains a frustration to governments in those countries, and they would welcome a U.S.-based precedent to justify blocking it. > > Setting such a precedent would also undermine US diplomacy. Over forty countries (and growing) now filter the Internet to some degree, and even liberal democracies are considering mandatory filtering and blocking regimes. Historically, the United States has been the strongest global voice against such balkanization of the Internet; the concept of a single, global Internet is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy on Internet matters. If the United States were to set the precedent that any country can order the blocking of a domain name if some of the content at that domain violates the country's laws, it is hard to see what credibility the U.S. would have as it urges other countries not to block access wherever they see fit. > > This does not mean that the United States should not take action against online infringers and encourage other countries to do likewise. The concern is simply that trying to use domain names as the means for fighting infringement would signal U.S. acceptance for the proposition that countries have the right to insist on removal of content from the global Internet as a tactic for enforcing domestic laws ? and nothing would limit the application of this approach to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. > > NY Times on music blog seizure: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/media/20music.html > > ArsTechnica on Spanish site seizure: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/us-customs-begins-pre-super-bowl-mole-whacking.ars > > CDT blog post on Mooo.com seizure: http://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/object-lesson-overblocking > > White House blog post on DNSSEC: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/22/a-major-milestone-internet-security > > Security Researcher Dan Kaminsky on COICA's security risks: http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/COICA_Kaminsky_letter.pdf > > __________________________________________ > > 4) Principles for a Sound Policy Approach > > Fighting online infringement is a worthy goal. Based on the analysis above, however, CDT believes that large-scale reliance on enforcement tactics that target domain names would fail any cost-benefit test. > > A sound policy approach in this area should focus first and foremost on catching and punishing true "bad actors." In the case of non-U.S. perpetrators, this will require cooperation with foreign governments. While such cooperation undoubtedly takes some effort, it ultimately offers the most effective approach, because it is the only way to ensure that the "bad guys" and the computer servers they use are actually taken offline for good. > > To the extent policymakers believe new enforcement tools are necessary, they should look for remedies other than domain-name blocking and seizures. Cutting off infringers' sources of financial support would be one area to explore. New remedies should be subject to careful cost-benefit analysis, asking both how effective a measure is likely to be and what collateral impact it may cause. Remedies that aim to sidestep adversarial judicial process would, at a minimum, need to be narrowly tailored and contain carefully crafted procedural safeguards. As the experience with ICE seizures has already begun to demonstrate, any process with insufficient safeguards risks impairing lawful websites and speech. > > Finally, it is important to keep in mind that a full strategy for reducing online infringement requires more than just the "stick" of law enforcement. One of the best defenses against infringement websites is the "carrot" of convenient, easy-to-use lawful choices for consumers to get the content they want in the form they want it. Policymakers should look for ways to encourage the legal marketplace. Public education is crucial as well. Modern information technology is here to stay and will continue to put powerful digital tools in the hands of the public. Inevitably, public norms and attitudes will play a major role in shaping how people choose to use the tools at their disposal. Consumers need better education about what copyright law prohibits and why infringement is both illegal and wrong. > > __________________________________________ > > Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at http://www.cdt.org/. > > This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to here: http://cdt.org/policy/cdt-warns-against-widespread-use-domain-name-tactics-enforce-copyright > > Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of brock at cdt.org > Policy Post 17.4 Copyright 2011 Center for Democracy & Technology > > ############################################################# > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to > Send administrative queries to > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 20:03:38 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:03:38 -0400 Subject: some links to video from ICANN San Francisco Message-ID: I've put a bunch of short clips up on youTube. Just some moments I happened to catch at the NCUC meeting and beyond. I had left my main camera in Bolinas on the weekend while visiting my nephew-- and was unable to retrieve it until I left SF. So these were all done on a $69 camera I bought at Target ( without a tripod, the small camera is very hard to hold still!) The lighting sucked and the sound went out after about a minute of taping each time. So I had to chose what was available. I do have better material from the Friday conference which I will post tomorrow. Here's what's up so far: Marc Rotenberg Pleads for Clear, Relevant Language for Consumers i.e. the war against acronyms! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRsL8tUoiz8 Marc Rotenberg on the Goals of a Consumer Constituency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-GIxSA1Rc Robin Gross on Anonymity in US history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou2hvtHrHOY Rafik Dammak at the Town Hall on Tunisian Internet Use http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViOcn3etOSA Dr, Amr El Sadr Speaks about Internet Use in Egypt (from the Town Hall) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPOdbAujDo Thanks to you all for thought-provoking meetings. In the next few days I will embed all of the clips and add some ruminations and documents on the waves blog-- stay tuned. -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 22 21:12:09 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:12:09 -0400 Subject: some links to video from ICANN San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great clips! You might want to make a playlist out of them? I am still working on retrieving the video of the iTownHall. j On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:03 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > I've put a bunch of short clips up on youTube. > Just some moments I happened to catch at the NCUC meeting and beyond. > > I had left my main camera in Bolinas on the weekend while visiting my > nephew-- and was unable to retrieve it until I left SF. So these were all > done on a $69 camera I bought at Target ( without a tripod, the small camera > is very hard to hold still!) The lighting sucked and the sound went out > after about a minute of taping each time. > So I had to chose what was available. I do have better material from > the Friday conference which I will post tomorrow. > > Here's what's up so far: > > Marc Rotenberg Pleads for Clear, Relevant Language for Consumers > i.e. the war against acronyms! > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRsL8tUoiz8 > > Marc Rotenberg on the Goals of a Consumer Constituency > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-GIxSA1Rc > > Robin Gross on Anonymity in US history > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou2hvtHrHOY > > Rafik Dammak at the Town Hall on Tunisian Internet Use > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViOcn3etOSA > > Dr, Amr El Sadr Speaks about Internet Use in Egypt (from the Town Hall) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPOdbAujDo > > Thanks to you all for thought-provoking meetings. In the next few days I > will embed all of the clips and add some ruminations and documents on the > waves blog-- > > stay tuned. > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 23 00:32:48 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:32:48 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <201103221416.p2MEGdj1007004@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440918012@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments have seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on it really combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the logic behind that often doesn't hold up. > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > Andrew A. Adams > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:17 AM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > > I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement > > cost= s. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why > > would you t= hink they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx > > where they would be = caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a > > child molester is with an x= xx domain. Does anyone thing they are > going to register child-molester.xxx? > > > > The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are > > as dif= ferent as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking > > for child mole= ster I would think that something like .info, which > > spammers seem to like, = would be the place to go and it would only be > > promoted withing the group. A= .xxx is like inviting the cops to your > house. > > > > So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money. > > > > The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming > > the = "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a > > slippery sl= ope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist > > (Atheist) immoral? In man= y countries I would be executed for my > > non-belief because I choose reality = first. > > Will the income stream from .xxx be put towards general efforts to > attacking the availability of sex abuse images online, not just within > .xxx? Or is it proposed that it is only within .xxx that this activity > will take place? > > > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy > Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Wed Mar 23 00:59:22 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:59:22 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440918012@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D8937DA.5010903@churchofreality.org> So it's really a sin tax. We could tax .gambling to fun probability mathematics education in high school. We could tax .prostitution to fund abstinence education. Would we tax .atheist to fund religious education or tax .god to fund science education? I'm just raising the question if the purpose of ICANN is to be in the morality tax business. I personally don't like morality taxes. I used to live in San Francisco where I committed the immoral act of owning a car. San Francisco looks down on car owners as sinners the way non-smokers look at smokers. That's just kind of something I find annoying, unless of course I'm the one who gets to decide who has to pay the sin taxes. (not me!) Getting back on track. If ICANN gets into the sin tax business then that's mission creep. It leads to creeping into law enforcement, moral police, things that ICANN should not be doing. Granted someone needs to protect children from predators but .xxx has nothing to do with it. And it's logically inconsistent. porn.xxx - tax porn.com - no tax Now - if there were a TLD where to join the TLD requires special processing - like .lawyer might require validating that you are a member of the bar - then the cost of doing that should be included in the domain. But in my mind he cost has to be directly connected to the TLD. And - that is the point I'm trying to make. On 3/22/2011 4:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments have seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on it really combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the logic behind that often doesn't hold up. > >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy >> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Wed Mar 23 01:17:26 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:17:26 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8937DA.5010903@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) Dan PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent costs being imposed on themselves. So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. On Tue, March 22, 2011 4:59 pm, Marc Perkel wrote: > So it's really a sin tax. > > We could tax .gambling to fun probability mathematics education in high > school. > We could tax .prostitution to fund abstinence education. > Would we tax .atheist to fund religious education or tax .god to fund > science education? > > I'm just raising the question if the purpose of ICANN is to be in the > morality tax business. > > I personally don't like morality taxes. I used to live in San Francisco > where I committed the immoral act of owning a car. San Francisco looks > down on car owners as sinners the way non-smokers look at smokers. > That's just kind of something I find annoying, unless of course I'm the > one who gets to decide who has to pay the sin taxes. (not me!) > > Getting back on track. If ICANN gets into the sin tax business then > that's mission creep. It leads to creeping into law enforcement, moral > police, things that ICANN should not be doing. > > Granted someone needs to protect children from predators but .xxx has > nothing to do with it. And it's logically inconsistent. > > porn.xxx - tax > porn.com - no tax > > Now - if there were a TLD where to join the TLD requires special > processing - like .lawyer might require validating that you are a member > of the bar - then the cost of doing that should be included in the > domain. But in my mind he cost has to be directly connected to the TLD. > > And - that is the point I'm trying to make. > > On 3/22/2011 4:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on >> child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments >> have seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on >> it really combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the >> logic behind that often doesn't hold up. >> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy >>> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Wed Mar 23 02:18:57 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:18:57 -0400 Subject: LEAs and Internet governance institutions (was: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers?) Message-ID: I'd like to point out that the close interaction that Robin points out between LEAs and Internet governance institutions is not limited to ICANN. Please see this recent article examining the flourishing relationship between LEAs and the Regional Internet Registries < http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110319_2nd_annual_ripe_ncc_lea_meeting_cooperation_unfolds/> Of course, this is not all doom and gloom. It is encouraging to hear that LEAs are being told to participate in the "bottom up" policy making processes of the RIRs. However, as Robin notes, agenda setting and framing of policy debates are just as important. Any objective, truly "multistakeholder" Internet governance institution will ensure all sides are represented. Best, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > We need more community involvement in the planning of the discussions / > meetings held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the usual > Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff > unilaterally plan a number of sessions that should require input from the > community. > > For example, last week in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute session > on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff unilaterally organized for a series of > law enforcement officials to provide a "parade of horribles" in order to > justify less consumer privacy protections at ICANN. > > When I asked ICANN staff why there wasn't any privacy experts speaking > during the public session, the staff member said they "assumed privacy was > not an issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously this is a problem. > ICANN staff unilaterally deciding what the discussions topics are, what the > important issues are, how to present them, what speakers to invite, and what > perspectives get heard. The way these discussions are framed obviously > plays a key role in steering the direction of the policy development > process. > > All of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we really should have more > of a say in how it is run and the substance of the discussions planned > during ICANN week is a good place to start. These discussions are a place > where the community should frame the discussion and set the topics, while > staff merely facilitate the wishes of the community. It feels too much like > the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. > > How can we the community begin to wrestle some control away from the staff > in terms of how topics are selected and how discussions are organized during > these meetings? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfernandes at CGI.BR Wed Mar 23 02:35:21 2011 From: mfernandes at CGI.BR (Marcelo Fernandes Costa) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:35:21 -0300 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco Message-ID: <20110322223521.78953fhd42rmp9i1@mail.cgi.br> Hi friends, As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in San Francisco. When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to pay my debt with some videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the week all the photos will be on Flickr. Lucky in life to everyone! Marcelo Fernandes From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 23 04:06:09 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:06:09 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8963A1.9010504@gmail.com> Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes (that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the act of doing so. Nicolas On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) > > That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs > on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. > > I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART > and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a > price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has > networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. > > Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) > > Dan > > PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand > smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to > breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of > this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent > costs being imposed on themselves. > > So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often > offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... > > From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Wed Mar 23 04:49:38 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:49:38 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8963A1.9010504@gmail.com> Message-ID: Taxes don't cover all externalities. :-) When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs, which I really don't care for, personally. It's a real and tangible cost to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual occurrence. Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not about morality. I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and restaurants. 'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI. I really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises before I finish whatever I'm doing there. If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's house) I wouldn't care at all. This is not a moral issue for me about the smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be attacked as such. I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit? Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but >i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many >externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes >(that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... > >I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me >wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the >act of doing so. > >Nicolas > >On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >> You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) >> >> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs >> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. >> >> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART >> and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a >> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has >> networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. >> >> Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) >> >> Dan >> >> PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand >> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to >> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of >> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent >> costs being imposed on themselves. >> >> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often >> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... >> >> From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 23 06:34:48 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:34:48 +0100 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8937DA.5010903@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: On 23 Mar 2011, at 00:59, Marc Perkel wrote: > So it's really a sin tax. why do you not believe in sin taxes. assuming you accept the idea of taxes in general, why should we who want to engage in behavior that is sometimes harmful and sometimes has a social cost (smoking, drinking, drugs, driving gas guzzlers, eating pastry etc) all things that are not necessary for life pay a little extra for the fun? a. From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 23 15:23:08 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:23:08 -0400 Subject: FW: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979962@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979964@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> No, it's not a sin tax. The price is not set by ICANN or the GAC but by the registry operator. There are some "sin regulations" imposed on ICM by GAC-ICANN, though, which add to costs. But as noted, no adult site is required to register there. > -----Original Message----- > > So it's really a sin tax. > > We could tax .gambling to fun probability mathematics education in high > school. > We could tax .prostitution to fund abstinence education. > Would we tax .atheist to fund religious education or tax .god to fund > science education? > > I'm just raising the question if the purpose of ICANN is to be in the > morality tax business. > > I personally don't like morality taxes. I used to live in San Francisco > where I committed the immoral act of owning a car. San Francisco looks > down on car owners as sinners the way non-smokers look at smokers. > That's just kind of something I find annoying, unless of course I'm the > one who gets to decide who has to pay the sin taxes. (not me!) > > Getting back on track. If ICANN gets into the sin tax business then > that's mission creep. It leads to creeping into law enforcement, moral > police, things that ICANN should not be doing. > > Granted someone needs to protect children from predators but .xxx has > nothing to do with it. And it's logically inconsistent. > > porn.xxx - tax > porn.com - no tax > > Now - if there were a TLD where to join the TLD requires special > processing - like .lawyer might require validating that you are a member > of the bar - then the cost of doing that should be included in the > domain. But in my mind he cost has to be directly connected to the TLD. > > And - that is the point I'm trying to make. > > On 3/22/2011 4:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on > child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments have > seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on it really > combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the logic behind > that often doesn't hold up. > > > >> > >> -- > >> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy > >> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 23 15:39:07 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:39:07 -0300 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco In-Reply-To: <20110322223521.78953fhd42rmp9i1@mail.cgi.br> Message-ID: <4D8A060B.9090907@cafonso.ca> This is real fun, but where is the audiocast of our Tuesday meetings? []s fraternos --c.a. On 03/22/2011 10:35 PM, Marcelo Fernandes Costa wrote: > Hi friends, > > As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in San > Francisco. > > When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to > pay my debt with some videos > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the > week all the photos will be on Flickr. > > Lucky in life to everyone! > > Marcelo Fernandes > From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Wed Mar 23 15:46:09 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:46:09 -0700 Subject: Why sin taxes are a sin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8A07B1.1060202@churchofreality.org> On 3/22/2011 10:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 23 Mar 2011, at 00:59, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> So it's really a sin tax. > > why do you not believe in sin taxes. > > assuming you accept the idea of taxes in general, why should we who want to engage in behavior that is sometimes harmful and sometimes has a social cost (smoking, drinking, drugs, driving gas guzzlers, eating pastry etc) all things that are not necessary for life pay a little extra for the fun? > > > a. > OK - I'm glad you asked that question. Why am I against sin taxes? I'll address it in two parts, what is sin - and even if something is sin that taxing it isn't a good idea. At issue is the .xxx TLD. As we know .xxx is something like porn or adult themed information dealing with sex. Is sex sin? With the exception of certain high tech solution we all exist because of sex. Without sex there would be no human race. Some might argue that .xxx type sex (porn) is different that virgin marriage monogamy sex but it's the same principle. Some people just get turned on by different things. If humanity had limited itself to virgin marriage monogamy reproduction then humanity would have gone extinct and none of us would be here having this discussion. I think it could probably be proved mathematically that every one of us has an ancestor born out of wedlock. So - I'm going to make a universal moral assumption: To exist is better than to be extinct. That's what I'm asking you to accept on faith. Thus since sex and .xxx activity is necessary for humanity to exist then it cannot be immoral - or sin. Now for the second part of my argument. Suppose we all agree that smoking cigarettes is a sin. There may be some smokers in the group who don't agree but we'll ignore it for now. Should it be subject to sin taxes? Increasing the price of cigarettes might marginally reduce the number of smokers but smoking is addictive and the addicts just have to pay more. This makes them poorer and more desperate, increases stress, might deprive them of money they might otherwise feed their children with, go to the doctor, or some other productive activity. It also increases crime as more people need to steal to get cigarette money. Then you get government getting hooked on cigarette income. So when society evolves away from cigarettes governments start noticing a shortfall in revenue which creates an incentive against anti-smoking legislation that works. Tobacco money is more addictive than tobacco. A real solution to smoking would be for the DEA to declare cigarettes a Schedule II drug, remove it completely from retail sales, and only allow smokers to get cigarettes from a pharmacy with a doctor's prescription. Then you'll see a serious reduction in smoking. I'll throw in a third example. San Francisco's sin of driving a car. The environmentalist sins. This too is an artificial sin because 99% of everything coming into San Fran comes in on a car or a truck. So those who walk get all their stuff from those who drive. If you really want to address the energy/carbon/resources/destroying the eerth problem then you have to focus on population control. There are too many people on the planet so even if you cut everyone's footprint in half, if the population doubles you gain nothing. OTOH, if I buy a poor pregnant teenager an abortion, I should get to drive a Hummer because that abortion saved more carbon than the Hummer would ever produce. Maybe we should rethink cannibalism as a way to fight global warming? Hmmmm .... Anyhow - my point - embrace reality - not fake solutions that sound politically correct but stuff that actually works. If we embrace fake solution that .xxx is immoral and we're going to alter the morality of it by taxing it and using it to prevent child porn on a TLD that wouldn't have child porn. Logically if you were going to do that then tax .com because that's where the porn is now. If we start down that path then when law enforcement wants a back door into my spam filtering server so that they can catch criminals the precedent for ICANN becoming the moral police has already been set. I'm making the slippery slope argument here. From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Wed Mar 23 15:58:39 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:58:39 +0000 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco In-Reply-To: <4D8A060B.9090907@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I have asked Glen for it and I am waiting for the MP3 of Tuesday's meeting. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: ???????, 23 ??????? 2011 2:39 ?? To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Videos and pics of San Francisco This is real fun, but where is the audiocast of our Tuesday meetings? []s fraternos --c.a. On 03/22/2011 10:35 PM, Marcelo Fernandes Costa wrote: > Hi friends, > > As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in > San Francisco. > > When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to > pay my debt with some videos > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the > week all the photos will be on Flickr. > > Lucky in life to everyone! > > Marcelo Fernandes > From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 23 16:25:53 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:25:53 -0300 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8A1101.9030109@cafonso.ca> Excellent! Thx, Konstantinos! --c.a. On 03/23/2011 11:58 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > I have asked Glen for it and I am waiting for the MP3 of Tuesday's meeting. > > KK > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Law Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: ???????, 23 ??????? 2011 2:39 ?? > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: Videos and pics of San Francisco > > This is real fun, but where is the audiocast of our Tuesday meetings? > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 03/22/2011 10:35 PM, Marcelo Fernandes Costa wrote: >> Hi friends, >> >> As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in >> San Francisco. >> >> When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to >> pay my debt with some videos >> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the >> week all the photos will be on Flickr. >> >> Lucky in life to everyone! >> >> Marcelo Fernandes >> > From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Thu Mar 24 07:05:00 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:05:00 -0700 Subject: Thanks to the NCUC crew for the success of NCUC@ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global Public Interest Message-ID: <9E1392B1-A71C-43A1-96F9-57B929546944@ipjustice.org> I wanted to thank everyone in NCUC who helped to make our recent conference in SF a great success! We've received lots of positive feedback on it from all parts of the community. I personally received much of the public credit for the event's success, BUT really it was a TEAM effort of many NCUC members -- and the credit properly goes to the entire constituency. In particular, we should thank all the session chairs for developing such solid substantive sessions (Milton, Bill, Konstantinos, Wendy, Katitza) and also Patrick Reilly, Nada Miljkovic and the IP Society for the webcast. (We should have the audio-video archive of the event posted soon). And we owe an enormous thanks to Brenden (aka "the Warlock") for operating the Adobe Connect and facilitating all sorts of technical wizardry to make the event go off without a hitch. Thank you, all! Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 24 07:20:16 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:20:16 +0300 Subject: PDP-WT stakeholders comments deadline 1st April (next week) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Neuman, Jeff Date: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:23 AM Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] No Call this week or next - Status Check To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org" All, Hope everyone had a safe an uneventful trip back from ICANN. Just writing to check in on the progress you and your stakeholder groups/constituencies are making on providing comments by April 1st (Next week). I would like to schedule our next call for Thursday April 7th at the regularly scheduled time. Hopefully by then, we will have all of our comments in and have had a few days to review them. Please come to that meeting prepared to discuss the comments. We have a short time to complete our work. Thanks! *Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy* 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 *Office:** *+1.571.434.5772 *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079 *Fax: * +1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman at neustar.biz */* www.neustar.biz Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Thu Mar 24 07:46:11 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:46:11 -0400 Subject: Thanks to the NCUC crew for the success of NCUC@ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global Public Interest In-Reply-To: <9E1392B1-A71C-43A1-96F9-57B929546944@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I have to admit I had my doubts about the extra effort involved beforehand, but the event was great- and I think it really enabled the NCUC to hit the ground running! j On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > I wanted to thank everyone in NCUC who helped to make our recent conference > in SF a great success! We've received lots of positive feedback on it from > all parts of the community. > > I personally received much of the public credit for the event's success, > BUT really it was a TEAM effort of many NCUC members -- and the credit > properly goes to the entire constituency. In particular, we should thank > all the session chairs for developing such solid substantive sessions > (Milton, Bill, Konstantinos, Wendy, Katitza) and also Patrick Reilly, Nada > Miljkovic and the IP Society for the webcast. (We should have the > audio-video archive of the event posted soon). > > And we owe an enormous thanks to Brenden (aka "the Warlock") for operating > the Adobe Connect and facilitating all sorts of technical wizardry to make > the event go off without a hitch. > > Thank you, all! > > Best, > Robin > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 24 15:58:37 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:58:37 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8B5C1D.5080105@gmail.com> By "taxes don't cover all externalities" and your related argument, you surely mean that "price" is not to be regarded as a good equivalence for all things "utility", and by extension, cost cannot be a good equivalence for all things externality. I will grant that i believe this to be true also. However, it is sometimes necessary to run with the postulate that price is a good indicator of value, and that costs should account for negative externalities. It would take a specially trained mind in the doctrines of the free market to contend that prices naturally reflect such things as negative externalities, but in the example at hand, we deal with taxes and so with a regulated price. The banning of smokes in restaurants, for example, is not about dealing with negative externalities in the sense that we usually ascribe this concept. I submit that in the example you provide, with a high tax on cigarettes, all externalities are meant to be covered, and if some are left unaccounted for, it can only be delt with by an increase in the degree in taxation and not by a change in the kind of regulation. A change in the kind of regulation does some good for your non-smoking humor, but it has nothing to do with taking negative externalities into account. As you so aptly stipulated, the medium overseeing such a change in the kind of regulation is power. If coupled with equity and a neutral moral stance, *and a desire to keep the strategy of individualizing negative externalities in the cost*, power would deal with complaints of non-smokers like yourself by creating both smoke-free zones and some free-of-smoke-free zones *in the same category of establishment*. If, as a public policy, an administration would say that 30% of restaurants in every restaurant category will hold a smoking permit (have them rotating every five years or some equivalent equitable mechanism), then and only then does this kind of regulation becomes devoid of the sin-factor. Nicolas On 22/03/2011 11:49 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > Taxes don't cover all externalities. :-) > > When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my > presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs, > which I really don't care for, personally. It's a real and tangible cost > to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual > occurrence. > > Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not > about morality. I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that > prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and > restaurants. 'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on > SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI. I > really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering > those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises > before I finish whatever I'm doing there. > > If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as > satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's > house) I wouldn't care at all. This is not a moral issue for me about the > smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are > physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be > attacked as such. > > I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit? > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > > > > At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >> Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but >> i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many >> externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes >> (that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... >> >> I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me >> wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the >> act of doing so. >> >> Nicolas >> >> On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >>> You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) >>> >>> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs >>> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. >>> >>> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART >>> and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a >>> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has >>> networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. >>> >>> Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand >>> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to >>> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of >>> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent >>> costs being imposed on themselves. >>> >>> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often >>> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... >>> >>> From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 24 23:27:07 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:27:07 +0200 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002b01cbea72$a75f8ee0$f61eaca0$@net> Thanks for the draft Brenden. Here is the list of fellows from San Francisco I think might be interested to join NCUC: Lira Samykbaeva lira at gipi.kg ? Kyrgyz Republic Pastor Peters Omoragbon nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com ? Nigeria Behnam Esfahbod behnam at esfahbod.info ? Iran Mohammad Thawabeh thawabeh at gmail.com ? Jordan Salieu Taal salieu.taal at gmail.com ? Gambia Richard Cheng richard at netmission.asia ? Hong Kong Michelle Qinyan qinyanmichelle at gmail.com ? Hong Kong Lira, Richard, and Michelle attended the first half of our constituency meeting and as far as I know from Richard, he already submitted his application to join NCUC. Peters Omoragbon expressed his intent to join NCUC after our participation at the Fellowship morning meeting. The NGO that he manages in Nigeria has also been an ALS with AFRALO since the Nairobi meeting where he attended his first ICANN meeting. May I suggest that when emailing this group, we draft a more customized and personal email addressing the fellows? That would make more sense to me considering that several of our members have already had a meeting with them; be it as brief as it was. As for President Clinton, I would guess that a more elaborate communiqu? might be in order. We?ve already had our minute and a half with him. Perhaps it would now be prudent to include an outline of some of the issues NCUC is currently tackling, and why we think he might want to personally (or The Clinton Foundation) join NCUC?s ranks along with an attached copy of our charter for membership eligibility with the message we send him. What do you think? Thanks. Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:46 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Great Meeting at San Fran On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don?t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some information about who and what we are. Agree. And this need not be more than a simple one-page letter which I've started - http://piratepad.net/12wRNGqtR2 - that contains a call to action to join NCUC. Anyone should feel free to edit as they see fit. Should we try to follow up with any new potential members that we met in SF by end of next week? a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Fri Mar 25 05:18:00 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:18:00 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8B5C1D.5080105@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, and that establishment of smoke-free zones is what I was talking about. If OTOH Marc is talking about actual taxing of cigarettes, that may be about external health effects (measured by health care costs) as opposed to the simple annoyance factor. In any case, I take a purely utilitarian view toward these policies, completely devoid of "moral" content. Which was really my point to Marc: not all policies are about morality, even if/when morality is sometimes used to sell the policies to a general public (which is indeed quite common, but that's driven by "what works" in public discourse as opposed to any intent to justify policy rationally -- I think it's useful to distinguish these things). Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 10:58 AM -0400 3/24/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >By "taxes don't cover all externalities" and your related argument, you >surely mean that "price" is not to be regarded as a good equivalence for >all things "utility", and by extension, cost cannot be a good >equivalence for all things externality. > >I will grant that i believe this to be true also. However, it is >sometimes necessary to run with the postulate that price is a good >indicator of value, and that costs should account for negative >externalities. It would take a specially trained mind in the doctrines >of the free market to contend that prices naturally reflect such things >as negative externalities, but in the example at hand, we deal with >taxes and so with a regulated price. > >The banning of smokes in restaurants, for example, is not about dealing >with negative externalities in the sense that we usually ascribe this >concept. I submit that in the example you provide, with a high tax on >cigarettes, all externalities are meant to be covered, and if some are >left unaccounted for, it can only be delt with by an increase in the >degree in taxation and not by a change in the kind of regulation. A >change in the kind of regulation does some good for your non-smoking >humor, but it has nothing to do with taking negative externalities into >account. > >As you so aptly stipulated, the medium overseeing such a change in the >kind of regulation is power. If coupled with equity and a neutral moral >stance, *and a desire to keep the strategy of individualizing negative >externalities in the cost*, power would deal with complaints of >non-smokers like yourself by creating both smoke-free zones and some >free-of-smoke-free zones *in the same category of establishment*. If, as >a public policy, an administration would say that 30% of restaurants in >every restaurant category will hold a smoking permit (have them rotating >every five years or some equivalent equitable mechanism), then and only >then does this kind of regulation becomes devoid of the sin-factor. > >Nicolas > >On 22/03/2011 11:49 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >> Taxes don't cover all externalities. :-) >> >> When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my >> presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs, >> which I really don't care for, personally. It's a real and tangible cost >> to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual >> occurrence. >> >> Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not >> about morality. I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that >> prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and >> restaurants. 'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on >> SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI. I >> really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering >> those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises >> before I finish whatever I'm doing there. >> >> If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as >> satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's >> house) I wouldn't care at all. This is not a moral issue for me about the >> smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are >> physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be >> attacked as such. >> >> I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit? >> >> Dan >> >> >> -- >> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do >> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. >> >> >> >> At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >>> Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but >>> i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many >>> externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes >>> (that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... >>> >>> I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me >>> wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the >>> act of doing so. >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >>>> You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) >>>> >>>> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs >>>> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. >>>> >>>> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART >>>> and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a >>>> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has >>>> networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. >>>> >>>> Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand >>>> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to >>>> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of >>>> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent >>>> costs being imposed on themselves. >>>> >>>> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often >>>> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... >>>> >>>> From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 25 11:09:07 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:09:07 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Please join NOW remotely (25.03.2011) : The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things Message-ID: Hi Forgot to mention this to NC, but in case anyone is interested? Avri and I are here in Leipzig for this discussion, which has some bearing on DNS/ICANN issues. Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: "sandra hoferichter" > Date: March 25, 2011 9:49:35 AM GMT+01:00 > To: > Subject: [governance] Please join NOW remotely (25.03.2011) : The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "sandra hoferichter" > > The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things > EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in cooperation with the > annual meeting of the IGF Dynamic coalition of the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIoT) > Leipzig, Germany, March 24-25, 2011 > Please find the programme here the times refers to CET (UTC+1h) > http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html > > As we are testing new equipment, we hope the audio will be sufficient- if not please apologise. > > Topic: The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things > Date: Friday, March 25, 2011 > Time: 9:43 am, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) > Meeting Number: 844 296 311 > Meeting Password: leipzig > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW=8cb857013401151e02&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D > > 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. > 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: leipzig > 4. Click "Join". > 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. > > To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW=8cb857013401151e02&ORT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the audio conference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > Call-in toll number (UK): (0)20 700 51000 > > Access code:844 296 311 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > info at hoferichter.eu > > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > CCP:+02070051000x844296311# > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 25 18:49:13 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:49:13 -0700 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <002b01cbea72$a75f8ee0$f61eaca0$@net> Message-ID: <30155CE6-EB77-454B-8A4D-9E29928601A5@ipjustice.org> Dear Amr, This is really terrific - thank you! What an impressive group of fellows this is - we will be lucky to have their views in the constituency. I like the idea of a formal letter to address the fellows and introduce NCUC to them. Thank you, Robin On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks for the draft Brenden. Here is the list of fellows from San Francisco I think might be interested to join NCUC: > > Lira Samykbaeva lira at gipi.kg ? Kyrgyz Republic > Pastor Peters Omoragbon nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com ? Nigeria > Behnam Esfahbod behnam at esfahbod.info ? Iran > Mohammad Thawabeh thawabeh at gmail.com ? Jordan > Salieu Taal salieu.taal at gmail.com ? Gambia > Richard Cheng richard at netmission.asia ? Hong Kong > Michelle Qinyan qinyanmichelle at gmail.com ? Hong Kong > > Lira, Richard, and Michelle attended the first half of our constituency meeting and as far as I know from Richard, he already submitted his application to join NCUC. Peters Omoragbon expressed his intent to join NCUC after our participation at the Fellowship morning meeting. The NGO that he manages in Nigeria has also been an ALS with AFRALO since the Nairobi meeting where he attended his first ICANN meeting. > > May I suggest that when emailing this group, we draft a more customized and personal email addressing the fellows? That would make more sense to me considering that several of our members have already had a meeting with them; be it as brief as it was. > > As for President Clinton, I would guess that a more elaborate communiqu? might be in order. We?ve already had our minute and a half with him. Perhaps it would now be prudent to include an outline of some of the issues NCUC is currently tackling, and why we think he might want to personally (or The Clinton Foundation) join NCUC?s ranks along with an attached copy of our charter for membership eligibility with the message we send him. What do you think? > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:46 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: Great Meeting at San Fran > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don?t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. > > > I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some information about who and what we are. > > > Agree. And this need not be more than a simple one-page letter which I've started - http://piratepad.net/12wRNGqtR2 - that contains a call to action to join NCUC. Anyone should feel free to edit as they see fit. Should we try to follow up with any new potential members that we met in SF by end of next week? > > > > a. > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Sat Mar 26 14:16:51 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:16:51 -0400 Subject: privacy issues Message-ID: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/25/microsoft-switches-o.html *Microsoft switches off privacy for Hotmail users in war-torn and repressive states *Cory Doctorow at 11:36 PM Fri For reasons unknown, Microsoft has changed the settings on Hotmail to disable HTTPS for users in several countries including Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Hotmail users in those countries can now be readily spied upon by ISPs and their governments. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some good perspective: Microsoft debuted the always-use-HTTPS feature for Hotmail in December of 2010, in order to give users the option of always encrypting their webmail traffic and protecting their sensitive communications from malicious hackers using tools such as Firesheep, and hostile governments eavesdropping on journalists and activists. For Microsoft to take such an enormous step backwards-- undermining the security of Hotmail users in countries where freedom of expression is under attack and secure communication is especially important--is deeply disturbing. We hope that this counterproductive and potentially dangerous move is merely an error that Microsoft will swiftly correct. The good news is that the fix is very easy. Hotmail users in the affected countries can turn the always-use-HTTPS feature back on by changing the country in their profile to any of the countries in which this feature has not been disabled, such as the United States, Germany, France, Israel, or Turkey. Hotmail users who browse the web with Firefox may force the use of HTTPS by default--while using any Hotmail location setting--by installing the HTTPS Everywhere Firefox plug-in. Microsoft Shuts off HTTPS in Hotmail for Over a Dozen Countries Previously: - EFF's latest HTTPS Everywhere plugin helps protect against ... - -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Sun Mar 27 03:27:08 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:27:08 +0800 Subject: privacy issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Microsoft are saying this was a bug, not a deliberate decision, and only effected the ability to switch to HTTPS - users who had already switched their settings did not have it turned off. So, weird and suspicious, but not much to do done until MS work out the cause. Cheers David From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Wed Mar 30 11:14:23 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:14:23 +0800 Subject: SSR Issues List Message-ID: The Security Stability and Resiliency team put out a list of issues a few weeks ago (prior to San Francisco), public comments close in about a week. if there is a particular issues you think the SSR team should (or should not be) looking at, this is your chance, and we'd appreciate comments. http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues Regards David From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Thu Mar 31 07:51:06 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:51:06 -0700 Subject: Are domain queries public? Message-ID: <4D94164A.5060300@churchofreality.org> Sometimes I get on OpenSRS (Tucows) and look up a domain name to find it available. A few days later someone registers the domain name. I don't think it's a coincidence. Are these queries public? From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Thu Mar 31 17:23:30 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:23:30 -0700 Subject: Domain Name Front Running Message-ID: <4D949C72.70408@churchofreality.org> It looks like it has a name. There appears to be some mechanism where if I look up a non-existent domain that lookup is somehow exposed to people who then register the domain if I don't register it immediately. The town of Gilroy is starting a farmers market. A few weeks ago I looked up GilroyFarmersMarket.com and it was available. I come back two weeks later and it's taken. Who is tracking this? How do third parties know that I looked up that domain? From avri at LTU.SE Thu Mar 31 20:35:58 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:35:58 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion Message-ID: <4836C646-670F-45BC-9E7F-F64D5626FD5C@ltu.se> Hi, Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion meeting. A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can be found at: http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd Please fill it out and please attend if you can. thanks a. From asterling at AAMC.ORG Thu Mar 31 20:41:37 2011 From: asterling at AAMC.ORG (Amber Sterling) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:41:37 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion In-Reply-To: A<4836C646-670F-45BC-9E7F-F64D5626FD5C@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4C757120A2B9574DBB39C286E5980F8907D3B9C1@EVS2.adm.aamc.org> Hi Avri, What day is the meeting? The blurb says April 7th and the calendar says April 5th. Thanks, Amber Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:36 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion Hi, Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion meeting. A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can be found at: http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd Please fill it out and please attend if you can. thanks a. From avri at LTU.SE Thu Mar 31 20:46:54 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:46:54 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion In-Reply-To: <4C757120A2B9574DBB39C286E5980F8907D3B9C1@EVS2.adm.aamc.org> Message-ID: <2D82704B-2E0F-4D69-B1AE-D1960EA5BBF2@ltu.se> Hi, I have clarified the text a little. The NCSG meeting is April 5 in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting which is April 7. Sorry for any confusion. a. On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:41, Amber Sterling wrote: > Hi Avri, > > What day is the meeting? The blurb says April 7th and the calendar says > April 5th. > > Thanks, > Amber > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:36 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion > > Hi, > > Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion > meeting. > > A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can > be found at: > > http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd > > Please fill it out and please attend if you can. > > thanks > > a. > From asterling at AAMC.ORG Thu Mar 31 20:49:28 2011 From: asterling at AAMC.ORG (Amber Sterling) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:49:28 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion In-Reply-To: A<2D82704B-2E0F-4D69-B1AE-D1960EA5BBF2@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4C757120A2B9574DBB39C286E5980F8907D3B9CF@EVS2.adm.aamc.org> Thanks for clarifying. Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:47 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion Hi, I have clarified the text a little. The NCSG meeting is April 5 in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting which is April 7. Sorry for any confusion. a. On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:41, Amber Sterling wrote: > Hi Avri, > > What day is the meeting? The blurb says April 7th and the calendar says > April 5th. > > Thanks, > Amber > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:36 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion > > Hi, > > Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion > meeting. > > A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can > be found at: > > http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd > > Please fill it out and please attend if you can. > > thanks > > a. > From mueller at SYR.EDU Tue Mar 1 01:28:48 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:28:48 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <594A0DB1-758B-4D44-85C4-31B187284CF2@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917ACA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain "concerns." But that was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you saw/heard/thought. From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:52 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now Hi Just a quick reminder that this much anticipated meeting is happening now and continues tomorrow. The GAC's "scorecard" of advice on new gTLD issues, staff background papers, webcast, scribe text and Adobe Connect are all at http://meetings.icann.org/board-gac-spring11. There's also a twitter feed #ICANN. We observers have no speaking rights in the room, but if any members have particular issues/questions they'd like to raise in other contexts feel free. We're currently talking about root scaling... Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 1 01:52:14 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:52:14 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917ACA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: scribe notes: http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for > about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression > was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of > relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating > debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not > contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not > pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem > of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain ?concerns.? But that > was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you > saw/heard/thought. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie? 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com ?http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ? VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 13:34:52 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:34:52 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Dear people, I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html The panel in question is the following: --------------------------- [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session chair) Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the UN's Internet Governance Forum --------------------------- The full program can be retrieved here: http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? I understand it should be a person who is closely following/participating in the international IG debate from civil society's perspective. Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) []s fraternos --c.a. From gpaque at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 14:11:23 2011 From: gpaque at GMAIL.COM (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:41:23 -0430 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D6CF07B.3060900@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 14:29:02 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CF07B.3060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, Carlos & Ginger. Several of the "good" people as alluded to actually sit on the GAC (Jayanatha, Alice et al) and are working on the Increasing Opportunities for All new (gTLDs) in the current GAC-Board discussions. However, (1) it is unlikely that they will arrive in time for March 11 and (2) if they do, GAC Meetings are already being planned for this period. Noting that this is an NCUC discussion, but also noting that GAC members wear many hats (e.g. Alice) I can volunteer to poll the developing country members of the GAC who are involved in this issue broadly to see (1) there is interest and (2) if they will or can arrive in San Francisco by 10 March. Is there support for this proposal? Rgds, Tracy On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree with Carlos Afonso here. The lack of balance in a session can > detract seriously from an otherwise excellent panel (I speak from > experience). It makes sense for all of us to try to make sure this panel > represents both sides evenly, to take advantage of the expertise and > experience already represented. > > I echo Carlos' question: who will be there that can assist, if the > organizers agree? > > Gracias... gp > > * > **Ginger (Virginia) Paque > *IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo...* > > > > > > On 3/1/2011 8:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 14:43:43 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:43:43 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6CF80F.2050503@cafonso.ca> OK with me. --c.a. On 03/01/2011 10:29 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Agreed, Carlos & Ginger. > > Several of the "good" people as alluded to actually sit on the GAC > (Jayanatha, Alice et al) and are working on the Increasing Opportunities for > All new (gTLDs) in the current GAC-Board discussions. > > However, (1) it is unlikely that they will arrive in time for March 11 and > (2) if they do, GAC Meetings are already being planned for this period. > > Noting that this is an NCUC discussion, but also noting that GAC members > wear many hats (e.g. Alice) I can volunteer to poll the developing country > members of the GAC who are involved in this issue broadly to see (1) there > is interest and (2) if they will or can arrive in San Francisco by 10 March. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> I agree with Carlos Afonso here. The lack of balance in a session can >> detract seriously from an otherwise excellent panel (I speak from >> experience). It makes sense for all of us to try to make sure this panel >> represents both sides evenly, to take advantage of the expertise and >> experience already represented. >> >> I echo Carlos' question: who will be there that can assist, if the >> organizers agree? >> >> Gracias... gp >> >> * >> **Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> *IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/1/2011 8:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear people, >> >> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >> >> The panel in question is the following: >> >> --------------------------- >> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >> >> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >> chair) >> Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >> UN's Internet Governance Forum >> --------------------------- >> >> The full program can be retrieved here: >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >> >> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >> March 11th? >> >> I understand it should be a person who is closely >> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >> society's perspective. >> >> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >> >> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >> >> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> > From nhklein at GMX.NET Tue Mar 1 15:23:42 2011 From: nhklein at GMX.NET (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:23:42 +0700 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D6D016E.5050204@gmx.net> "To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the participation of developing country stakeholders?" - ICANN has not. I would not know easily identifiable examples. The closes I can think of is - by implication - "geographical diversity" rules. But these too do not apply on every aspect of ICANN's work. When it comes to the use of languages - if you are in a part oft the world where the language is NOT English (or, in some cases French or Spanish), it is difficult even to share some of ICANN's hot topics, because they are formulated in quite a different context. - I am not pleading that everything should be translated into every language. But the way in which discussions develop should consider the wider context - including "far away" countries - that is far away form the sophisticated environments where ICANN mostly acts. One example: When the discussion was going on in recent weeks about the possible membership in NCSG-NCUC of an organization which has "non profit status" in some countries, but is representing a membership which is to a good extent for-profit, it was almost impossible to explain the case in our context. And this is not for linguistic reasons, but for the general context of refined or simple legal arrangements. I have since a long time given up to explain the development of the several stages of handbook drafts for new TLDs - after starting, the response is quickly: "But this is obviously not for us." Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia On 3/1/2011 7:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance& the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 1 16:05:03 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:05:03 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. i won't even whinge. a. On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 16:10:00 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:10:00 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: but avri, there are so few women on.... can we have a policy that 50% of anything we organize has 50% women? dd On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. > i won't even whinge. > > a. > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > > > The panel in question is the following: > > > > --------------------------- > > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > > chair) > > Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > > UN's Internet Governance Forum > > --------------------------- > > > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > > March 11th? > > > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > > society's perspective. > > > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > participants: > > > > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > > > []s fraternos > > > > --c.a. > > > -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 18:10:34 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:10:34 +0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global > Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San > Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html > > The panel in question is the following: > > --------------------------- > [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session > chair) > Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair > Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor > Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the > UN's Internet Governance Forum > --------------------------- > > The full program can be retrieved here: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > I do not know if this is may be any help? but I am typing this message from: http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/features/index.html?propertyID=3000 But I plan to be at the Westin, Union Square on 11th March. kind regards, Alex > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 18:18:33 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:18:33 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6D2A69.5090002@cafonso.ca> One more, one less... no real numeric difference -- but more balanced, is my plea. --c.a. On 03/01/2011 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. > i won't even whinge. > > a. > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >> >> The panel in question is the following: >> >> --------------------------- >> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >> >> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >> chair) >> Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >> UN's Internet Governance Forum >> --------------------------- >> >> The full program can be retrieved here: >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >> >> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >> March 11th? >> >> I understand it should be a person who is closely >> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >> society's perspective. >> >> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >> >> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: >> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >> >> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> > From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 1 18:22:13 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:22:13 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6D2B45.8090005@cafonso.ca> You have my vote! :) --c.a. On 03/01/2011 02:10 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >> >> The panel in question is the following: >> >> --------------------------- >> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >> >> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >> chair) >> Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >> UN's Internet Governance Forum >> --------------------------- >> >> The full program can be retrieved here: >> >> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >> >> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >> March 11th? >> >> I understand it should be a person who is closely >> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >> society's perspective. >> >> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >> > > I do not know if this is may be any help? but I am typing this message > from: > http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/features/index.html?propertyID=3000 > But > I plan to be at the Westin, Union Square on 11th March. > > kind regards, > > Alex > > > > > >> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: >> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >> >> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> > From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Tue Mar 1 18:30:38 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:30:38 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6CE7EC.7070109@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <762F9FEE-5891-442A-8893-92B9BE6EE331@graduateinstitute.ch> Carlos, On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > "developing countries". Again, 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her flight doesn't get in on time. 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs more time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the > participation of developing country stakeholders? For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG that's been working on options to help developing country and other resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And the conversations around this with board members and others at the workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al around these issues. > How do developing > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect > the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing > pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that > would have "oversight" of ICANN? Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to join for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand experience with. > What do these dynamics mean for the > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good framework for discussion. > If you share this concern, could you help > suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the > organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by > March 11th? Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work let's look at options. > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > society's perspective. Yup > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I > can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about > Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants: > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance would of course be welcome. Best, Bill From tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 1 18:38:17 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6D2A69.5090002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I will ask the GAC "Developing Countries" members (based on the UN definitions at www.unohrlls.org) for some options/names if there is no objection from the list. Rgds, Tracy On 3/1/11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > One more, one less... no real numeric difference -- but more balanced, > is my plea. > > --c.a. > > On 03/01/2011 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. >> i won't even whinge. >> >> a. >> >> On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >>> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >>> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >>> >>> The panel in question is the following: >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >>> >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >>> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >>> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >>> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >>> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>> >>> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >>> chair) >>> Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >>> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >>> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >>> UN's Internet Governance Forum >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> The full program can be retrieved here: >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >>> >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >>> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >>> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >>> March 11th? >>> >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>> society's perspective. >>> >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >>> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >>> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >>> >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>> participants: >>> >>> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >>> >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >> > -- Sent from my mobile device From kim at VONARX.CA Wed Mar 2 00:55:32 2011 From: kim at VONARX.CA (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:55:32 -0500 Subject: WHOIS RT Mtg Message-ID: Dear All: I am wondering if, during the ICANN mtg, you would like for some of the RT members to join you for a quick discussion on the developments on the WHOIS RT? Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kim at VONARX.CA Wed Mar 2 01:01:16 2011 From: kim at VONARX.CA (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:01:16 -0500 Subject: WHOIS RT audicast link Message-ID: Dear All: I got the audiocast link for the WHOIS RT telephone conference March 2 at 05:00 UTC: http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Wed Mar 2 18:24:36 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:24:36 +0800 Subject: Fwd: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:24 AM +0100 28/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >Any volunteers? We have one open slot. > >I was going to volunteer at one point, but thought we were only >going to suggest 2 people per SG. I will, however, stand aside for >anyone else who wants to volunteer - I have already taken up too >many slots. > >In volunteering, please note that charter requirement is for members >to have the necessary tech experience and that there is an NDA. > >http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-wg-charter-12nov10-en.pdf > I am interested. It looks to me to be very complementary to the SSR Review Team work I am already doing. In any case, Avri, if you are still keen I would happily defer. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 18:43:20 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:43:20 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <762F9FEE-5891-442A-8893-92B9BE6EE331@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917B30@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Why not put Carlos on the panel? > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > William Drake > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > program > > Carlos, > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > > Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > > > My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > > "developing countries". > > Again, > > 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her > flight doesn't get in on time. > > 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs more > time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in > Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. > > 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need > people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > > > To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted > > the participation of developing country stakeholders? > > For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at > the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG > that's been working on options to help developing country and other > resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for > new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak > about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions > about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG > meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And > the conversations around this with board members and others at the > workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, > and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al > around these issues. > > > How do developing > > country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN > > affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their > > continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental > > body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? > > Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week > in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've > organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to join > for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat > at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the > current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand > experience with. > > > What do these dynamics mean for the > > global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > > We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 > minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. > So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move > crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in > order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good framework > for discussion. > > > If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from > > the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), > > and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? > > Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work > let's look at options. > > > > I understand it should be a person who is closely > > following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > > society's perspective. > > Yup > > > > Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > > issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people > > (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure > > about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of > names. > > > > It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > participants: > > > > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%2 > > 0%0A > > > > Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > > I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be > developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people > who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance > would of course be welcome. > > Best, > > Bill From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 2 19:21:23 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:21:23 +0100 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <65DF923A-52E2-4136-AF9F-3CEF849ECCC3@ltu.se> Hi, I am not keen to add more ICANN work just now. You are welcome to the slot. Any objections to David in the third slot? a. On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:24, David Cake wrote: > At 11:24 AM +0100 28/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Any volunteers? We have one open slot. >> >> I was going to volunteer at one point, but thought we were only going to suggest 2 people per SG. I will, however, stand aside for anyone else who wants to volunteer - I have already taken up too many slots. >> >> In volunteering, please note that charter requirement is for members to have the necessary tech experience and that there is an NDA. >> >> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-wg-charter-12nov10-en.pdf >> > > I am interested. It looks to me to be very complementary to the SSR Review Team work I am already doing. > In any case, Avri, if you are still keen I would happily defer. > Regards > David From wendy at SELTZER.COM Wed Mar 2 20:08:48 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:08:48 -0500 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: <65DF923A-52E2-4136-AF9F-3CEF849ECCC3@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4D6E95C0.9010107@seltzer.com> No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? --Wendy On 03/02/2011 01:21 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not keen to add more ICANN work just now. > > You are welcome to the slot. > > Any objections to David in the third slot? > > a. > > > > On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:24, David Cake wrote: > >> At 11:24 AM +0100 28/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Any volunteers? We have one open slot. >>> >>> I was going to volunteer at one point, but thought we were only going to suggest 2 people per SG. I will, however, stand aside for anyone else who wants to volunteer - I have already taken up too many slots. >>> >>> In volunteering, please note that charter requirement is for members to have the necessary tech experience and that there is an NDA. >>> >>> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-wg-charter-12nov10-en.pdf >>> >> >> I am interested. It looks to me to be very complementary to the SSR Review Team work I am already doing. >> In any case, Avri, if you are still keen I would happily defer. >> Regards >> David > > From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 20:40:01 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:40:01 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DDC2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> please do that, Tracy. ________________________________________ From: NCSG-NCUC [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google [tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:38 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event program I will ask the GAC "Developing Countries" members (based on the UN definitions at www.unohrlls.org) for some options/names if there is no objection from the list. Rgds, Tracy On 3/1/11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > One more, one less... no real numeric difference -- but more balanced, > is my plea. > > --c.a. > > On 03/01/2011 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> In order to keep the panel small. feel free to substitute for me. >> i won't even whinge. >> >> a. >> >> On 1 Mar 2011, at 13:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global >>> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San >>> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ): >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html >>> >>> The panel in question is the following: >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ] Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance >>> >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the >>> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect >>> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing >>> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that >>> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>> >>> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session >>> chair) >>> Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair >>> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor >>> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the >>> UN's Internet Governance Forum >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> The full program can be retrieved here: >>> >>> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184 >>> >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help >>> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the >>> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by >>> March 11th? >>> >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>> society's perspective. >>> >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I >>> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about >>> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names. >>> >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>> participants: >>> >>> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A >>> >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >> > -- Sent from my mobile device From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 20:40:36 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:40:36 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DDC3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Joly: I didn't ask for a transcript. I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill? --MM ________________________________________ From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now scribe notes: http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for > about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression > was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of > relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating > debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not > contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not > pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem > of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain “concerns.” But that > was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you > saw/heard/thought. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 2 21:32:50 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:32:50 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DDC3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20436C77-7B76-48C2-BA58-CB002A60EF07@ltu.se> hi, i know you guys did not send me, but i will work up an impressions report in the next day or so for blog and for those who did send me. It went until this morning, and to be honest, I am still working on understanding. quick impressions: board asserted itself gac asserted itself. for the most part it was good natured. though GAC did start by threatening and every once in a while, when they felt it slipping, threatened again. and the Board pretty much contained their frustration. most of the time. they, as groups, obviously don't have the hang of multistakeholder discussion yet, but were working on it, and some of them do have experience. but i think GAC will accept even losing some of their points if they really feel that due diligence has been done and there was a real consideration of their points. not all of them of course. there will be be spoiled sports or both siders. and some of the points are more qualifications and areas where they do not understand how the mechanisms are supposed to work. or maybe they don't believe the mechanism don't work. i am hoping the Board will have a coherent response to the scorecard in the next few days. i am not going to cull it from the transcript but this morning and yesterday afternoon was the scorecard response. a. On 2 Mar 2011, at 20:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Joly: > I didn't ask for a transcript. > I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill? > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now > > scribe notes: > > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for >> about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression >> was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of >> relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating >> debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not >> contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not >> pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem >> of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain “concerns.” But that >> was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you >> saw/heard/thought. >> >> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Wed Mar 2 21:58:51 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:58:51 -0800 Subject: ICANN Board Submits Preliminary Answers to GAC's Scorecard on Trademarks Message-ID: Konstantinos has published an excellent analysis of the Board's response to GAC on the trademark issues. See: http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/03/the-icann-board-submits-preliminary-answers-to-gacs-scorecard-on-trademarks.html While the board said it wouldn't expand trademark rights - and that is good news - it also is willing to give the IP industry a major concession by providing for the transfer of a domain name upon a successful URS action. The community's compromise was to provide for the SUSPENSION of a domain name, but not its transfer. This was an important premise that much of the negotiated compromises were built upon, so changing this plank is a major concern. And I also agree that the board's willingness to treat a default as bad faith is troubling. Any news on what happened with the MAPO/MOPO "sensitive" strings issue? Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Wed Mar 2 22:34:54 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:34:54 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <20436C77-7B76-48C2-BA58-CB002A60EF07@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4D6E71AE0200005B00068FE2@mail.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Avri - I think we will all be looking forward to the eyewitness account, especially as going through the transcript is pretty painful and takes a looooong time :( My impression of the initial Rec 6 discussion was that (according to Suzanne Sene) the GAC is requesting that it be exempt from the Limited Public Interest Objection Procedure. I'd be curious to know how that would work and what the consequent discussions were like. Cheers, and thanks again to you, Bill, Rudi and whoever else could make it to Brussels, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/2/2011 3:37 PM Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now hi, i know you guys did not send me, but i will work up an impressions report in the next day or so for blog and for those who did send me. It went until this morning, and to be honest, I am still working on understanding. quick impressions: board asserted itself gac asserted itself. for the most part it was good natured. though GAC did start by threatening and every once in a while, when they felt it slipping, threatened again. and the Board pretty much contained their frustration. most of the time. they, as groups, obviously don't have the hang of multistakeholder discussion yet, but were working on it, and some of them do have experience. but i think GAC will accept even losing some of their points if they really feel that due diligence has been done and there was a real consideration of their points. not all of them of course. there will be be spoiled sports or both siders. and some of the points are more qualifications and areas where they do not understand how the mechanisms are supposed to work. or maybe they don't believe the mechanism don't work. i am hoping the Board will have a coherent response to the scorecard in the next few days. i am not going to cull it from the transcript but this morning and yesterday afternoon was the scorecard response. a. On 2 Mar 2011, at 20:40, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Joly: > I didn't ask for a transcript. > I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill? > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now > > scribe notes: > > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt > http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for >> about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression >> was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of >> relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating >> debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not >> contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not >> pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem >> of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain “concerns.” But that >> was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you >> saw/heard/thought. >> >> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 2 22:41:21 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:41:21 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917B30@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6EB981.7000808@cafonso.ca> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I understand, will be in San Fran on time. --c.a. On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of >> William Drake >> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event >> program >> >> Carlos, >> >> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >> >> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. >> >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>> "developing countries". >> >> Again, >> >> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her >> flight doesn't get in on time. >> >> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs more >> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in >> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. >> >> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need >> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: >> >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted >>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? >> >> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at >> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG >> that's been working on options to help developing country and other >> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for >> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak >> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions >> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG >> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And >> the conversations around this with board members and others at the >> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, >> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al >> around these issues. >> >>> How do developing >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN >>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their >>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental >>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? >> >> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week >> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've >> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to join >> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat >> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the >> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand >> experience with. >> >>> What do these dynamics mean for the >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >> >> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 >> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. >> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move >> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in >> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good framework >> for discussion. >> >>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from >>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), >>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? >> >> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work >> let's look at options. >>> >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>> society's perspective. >> >> Yup >>> >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people >>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure >>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of >> names. >>> >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >> participants: >>> >>> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%2 >>> 0%0A >>> >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >> >> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be >> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people >> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance >> would of course be welcome. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill > From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 2 23:40:39 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:40:39 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6EB981.7000808@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409798FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program > > No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > understand, will be in San Fran on time. > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On > Behalf Of > >> William Drake > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM > >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > >> program > >> > >> Carlos, > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> > >>> Dear people, > >>> > >>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > >> > >> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > >> > >>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > >>> "developing countries". > >> > >> Again, > >> > >> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her > >> flight doesn't get in on time. > >> > >> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs > more > >> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in > >> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. > >> > >> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need > >> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > >> > >>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and > promoted > >>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? > >> > >> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at > >> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG > >> that's been working on options to help developing country and other > >> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for > >> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak > >> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions > >> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG > >> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And > >> the conversations around this with board members and others at the > >> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, > >> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al > >> around these issues. > >> > >>> How do developing > >>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN > >>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their > >>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental > >>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? > >> > >> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week > >> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've > >> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to > join > >> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat > >> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the > >> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand > >> experience with. > >> > >>> What do these dynamics mean for the > >>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > >> > >> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 > >> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. > >> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move > >> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in > >> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good > framework > >> for discussion. > >> > >>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from > >>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), > >>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? > >> > >> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work > >> let's look at options. > >>> > >>> I understand it should be a person who is closely > >>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > >>> society's perspective. > >> > >> Yup > >>> > >>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > >>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people > >>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure > >>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of > >> names. > >>> > >>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > >> participants: > >>> > >>> > https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 > 0%2 > >>> 0%0A > >>> > >>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > >> > >> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be > >> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people > >> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance > >> would of course be welcome. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > > From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 2 23:42:02 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:42:02 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <4D6E71AE0200005B00068FE2@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <7CC23090-EC77-4B4D-B6EF-7C655AA8635D@ltu.se> On 2 Mar 2011, at 22:34, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > I think we will all be looking forward to the eyewitness account, especially as going through the transcript is pretty painful and takes a looooong time :( > fyi, i am not writing anything without reviewing the transcript first - no matter how long it is - though the responses from the board to the scorecard are relatively short. maybe 2-3 hours worth of transcript yesterday afternoon and this morning. being an eyewitness is great for judging the mood and the dynamics of the room - that is what you can't get from a transcript of even an audiocast. but to make sure i understood what was said, i will not rely on my memory alone. that is one reason why i have not written my impression of mapo etc.. so yeah, it is long to read it, and that is why my 'substantive report' isn't done yet. but i have a looooong plane ride tomorrow. a. From ca at CAFONSO.CA Thu Mar 3 03:14:26 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:14:26 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409798FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6EF982.3030006@cafonso.ca> Good suggestions as well. I did not find their names in the registration list though (as of March 01). --c.a. On 03/02/2011 07:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? > They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program >> >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Why not put Carlos on the panel? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On >> Behalf Of >>>> William Drake >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM >>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event >>>> program >>>> >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>>> >>>> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. >>>> >>>>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>>>> "developing countries". >>>> >>>> Again, >>>> >>>> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her >>>> flight doesn't get in on time. >>>> >>>> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs >> more >>>> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in >>>> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. >>>> >>>> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need >>>> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: >>>> >>>>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and >> promoted >>>>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? >>>> >>>> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at >>>> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG >>>> that's been working on options to help developing country and other >>>> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for >>>> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak >>>> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions >>>> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG >>>> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And >>>> the conversations around this with board members and others at the >>>> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, >>>> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al >>>> around these issues. >>>> >>>>> How do developing >>>>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN >>>>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their >>>>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental >>>>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? >>>> >>>> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week >>>> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've >>>> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to >> join >>>> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat >>>> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the >>>> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand >>>> experience with. >>>> >>>>> What do these dynamics mean for the >>>>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>>> >>>> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 >>>> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. >>>> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move >>>> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in >>>> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good >> framework >>>> for discussion. >>>> >>>>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from >>>>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), >>>>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? >>>> >>>> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work >>>> let's look at options. >>>>> >>>>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>>>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>>>> society's perspective. >>>> >>>> Yup >>>>> >>>>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>>>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people >>>>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure >>>>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of >>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>>> participants: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 >> 0%2 >>>>> 0%0A >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>>> >>>> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be >>>> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people >>>> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance >>>> would of course be welcome. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>> > From ca at CAFONSO.CA Thu Mar 3 03:21:01 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:21:01 -0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409798FD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6EFB0D.6070407@cafonso.ca> BTW, have you noticed how precarious the ICANN registration system is? There are 68 participants listed as from Afghanistan! All those who did not choose their country of origin became Afghan nationals! I wonder what the NSA + DHS will make of this... :) --c.a. On 03/02/2011 07:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? > They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program >> >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Why not put Carlos on the panel? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On >> Behalf Of >>>> William Drake >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM >>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event >>>> program >>>> >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the >>>> >>>> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. >>>> >>>>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the >>>>> "developing countries". >>>> >>>> Again, >>>> >>>> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her >>>> flight doesn't get in on time. >>>> >>>> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs >> more >>>> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in >>>> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. >>>> >>>> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need >>>> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: >>>> >>>>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and >> promoted >>>>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? >>>> >>>> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at >>>> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG >>>> that's been working on options to help developing country and other >>>> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for >>>> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak >>>> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions >>>> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG >>>> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And >>>> the conversations around this with board members and others at the >>>> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, >>>> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al >>>> around these issues. >>>> >>>>> How do developing >>>>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN >>>>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their >>>>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental >>>>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? >>>> >>>> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week >>>> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've >>>> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to >> join >>>> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat >>>> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the >>>> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand >>>> experience with. >>>> >>>>> What do these dynamics mean for the >>>>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? >>>> >>>> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 >>>> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. >>>> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move >>>> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in >>>> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good >> framework >>>> for discussion. >>>> >>>>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from >>>>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), >>>>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? >>>> >>>> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work >>>> let's look at options. >>>>> >>>>> I understand it should be a person who is closely >>>>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil >>>>> society's perspective. >>>> >>>> Yup >>>>> >>>>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the >>>>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people >>>>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure >>>>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of >>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered >>>> participants: >>>>> >>>>> >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 >> 0%2 >>>>> 0%0A >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) >>>> >>>> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be >>>> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people >>>> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance >>>> would of course be welcome. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>> > From avri at LTU.SE Thu Mar 3 06:01:13 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:01:13 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <7CC23090-EC77-4B4D-B6EF-7C655AA8635D@ltu.se> Message-ID: <9075CF33-B46F-497D-8644-22C270A216FC@ltu.se> In the meantime, Kieren did an annotated version. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/02/transcript-icann-gac-board From naveedpta at HOTMAIL.COM Thu Mar 3 06:54:58 2011 From: naveedpta at HOTMAIL.COM (Naveed haq) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 05:54:58 +0000 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6EF982.3030006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This would be an interesting and important session for people like us from developing side of the world. Feel bad while missing since i will be arriving on 12th. Hope to catch up the discussions during the meeting breaks. Best of luck to the participants and organizers. Best Regards, Naveed-ul-Haq Assistant Director (ICT) Pakistan Telecom Authority Headquarters F-5/1, Islamabad Ph. +92-51-9203911 Fax. +92-51-2878124 Mob. +92-342-5554444 > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:14:26 -0300 > From: ca at CAFONSO.CA > Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Good suggestions as well. I did not find their names in the registration > list though (as of March 01). > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 07:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Will Tan tin-wee or James Tseng be there? > > They are both Chinese, deeply involved in IDN stuff. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:41 PM > >> To: Milton L Mueller > >> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >> Subject: Re: a concern regarding the ncuc event program > >> > >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> Why not put Carlos on the panel? > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On > >> Behalf Of > >>>> William Drake > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:31 PM > >>>> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > >>>> program > >>>> > >>>> Carlos, > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Dear people, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the > >>>> > >>>> Right, and I replied to you privately a couple hours ago. > >>>> > >>>>> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the > >>>>> "developing countries". > >>>> > >>>> Again, > >>>> > >>>> 1. I invited Olga Cavalli from Argentina but she's recently said her > >>>> flight doesn't get in on time. > >>>> > >>>> 2. I invited Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government but she needs > >> more > >>>> time to see if she can make it. I just spoke with her again here in > >>>> Brussels and she can give me an answer on Thursday. > >>>> > >>>> 3. If Alice can't do it I said I'll invite someone else. We need > >>>> people who've been engaged with and can speak to the topics: > >>>> > >>>>> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and > >> promoted > >>>>> the participation of developing country stakeholders? > >>>> > >>>> For example, we've been raising these questions in the Council and at > >>>> the ICANN meetings, resulting inter alia in the formation of the JAS WG > >>>> that's been working on options to help developing country and other > >>>> resource challenged actors to deal with the high application fees for > >>>> new gTLDs. Avri and Rafik co-chair the group, so I asked them to speak > >>>> about that and related. There've also been the parallel discussions > >>>> about promoting developing country participation, such as the Board WG > >>>> meeting in Nairobi I spoke at, and the outreach team Olga's led. And > >>>> the conversations around this with board members and others at the > >>>> workshop I organized at IGF Vilnius on ICANN and developing countries, > >>>> and all the other continuing discussions with board staff SGs et al > >>>> around these issues. > >>>> > >>>>> How do developing > >>>>> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN > >>>>> affect the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their > >>>>> continuing pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental > >>>>> body that would have "oversight" of ICANN? > >>>> > >>>> Issues that are being illustrated here in Brussels, as well as last week > >>>> in Geneva, and also have been addressed e.g. in the five IGF events I've > >>>> organized on development agenda issues. I asked Markus Kummer to > >> join > >>>> for that part of the discussion because he's recently left the hot seat > >>>> at the IGF and can now speak freely to these issues, which all the > >>>> current and hoped for panelists have pretty extensive first hand > >>>> experience with. > >>>> > >>>>> What do these dynamics mean for the > >>>>> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users? > >>>> > >>>> We will have about 50 minutes to cover all this grounds, so like 25 > >>>> minutes on internal ICANN and 25 on external geopolitical dimensions. > >>>> So nobody's going to have tons of mic time and we will need to move > >>>> crisply through a structured discussion (not serial talking heads) in > >>>> order to map this terrain and provide the audience with a good > >> framework > >>>> for discussion. > >>>> > >>>>> If you share this concern, could you help suggesting more names from > >>>>> the South which could be added (if the organizers agree, of course), > >>>>> and who will certainly be in San Fran by March 11th? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. Let me see what happens from Alice and if that doesn't work > >>>> let's look at options. > >>>>> > >>>>> I understand it should be a person who is closely > >>>>> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil > >>>>> society's perspective. > >>>> > >>>> Yup > >>>>> > >>>>> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the > >>>>> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people > >>>>> (I can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure > >>>>> about Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of > >>>> names. > >>>>> > >>>>> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered > >>>> participants: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%2 > >> 0%2 > >>>>> 0%0A > >>>>> > >>>>> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :) > >>>> > >>>> I told you I was working on it. But ok, this panel doesn't have to be > >>>> developed in the same way as all the others, suggestions of people > >>>> who've been closely engaged with the topics and will be in attendance > >>>> would of course be welcome. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Thu Mar 3 11:20:06 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 18:20:06 +0800 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: <4D6E95C0.9010107@seltzer.com> Message-ID: At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. Regards David From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Thu Mar 3 16:31:43 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:31:43 -0500 Subject: Women involved in the DNS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D6F6E0F0200005B000690B6@mail.law.unh.edu> Karla Valente (ICANN Staff) organizes a "Women in the DNS" breakfast meeting at most ICANN meetings. The SF one will take place on Monday 14 March at 7 a.m. in the venue hotel (Westin St Francis) - I've attended a couple in the past and found them useful and a good way to meet other women working on DNS issues (from business managers to technical folks). Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: David Cake To: Date: 3/3/2011 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rossella.mattioli at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 3 17:52:38 2011 From: rossella.mattioli at GMAIL.COM (Rossella Mattioli) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:52:38 +0100 Subject: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA list of GNSO volunteers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd like to be more involved in DNS security and stability and if not for this round, I am available for future involvements. My name is Rossella Mattioli and I am in the first year of a Master's degree in Cyber Security, a program unique in Europe run jointly by the Tallinn University of Technology and Tartu University in Estonia. The Cyber Security Master's program covers technical, organizational and managerial aspects of Cyber Security, with lecturers from Critical Emergency Readiness Teams and Financial Institutions throughout Europe as well as the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. I've been interested in the Internet and Cybersecurity for well over a decade and through the length of my professional career. In 2001 I began working as an Intranet Manager for Credem, one of the largest financial groups in Italy. At Credem, I defined policies for whole virtual workspace, managing 240 publishers, 24 communities and over 6,000 employees. This work helped me develop experience in network governance and online community management, while guiding me towards my current academic interest in the fundamentals of Internet governance, security and stability. For these reasons in 2010, after I graduated with a thesis about Internet Governance and Security issues, I relocated in Estonia. Cheers, Rossella Il giorno 03/mar/2011, alle ore 11.20, David Cake ha scritto: > At 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >> who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? > > I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. > Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm > (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. > Regards > David From ruvakubusa at YAHOO.FR Thu Mar 3 17:02:29 2011 From: ruvakubusa at YAHOO.FR (LILIANE RUVAKUBUSA) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:02:29 +0000 Subject: Women involved in the DNS In-Reply-To: <4D6F6E0F0200005B000690B6@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <145616.55520.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear All,   I'm a Burundian women, member of the noncommercial stakeholder group, I'm a IT Expert in Burundi, our agency wants to create telecenters in provinces to bring the digital society in rural areas. But, I have not yet participate in any of the ICANN meetings, may be the opportunity will come, regards Liliane Ruvakubusa GIDA'Representative(Global and Integrated Development Agency) ruvakubusa at yahoo.fr Mobile +257 77 748 211 ou + 257 22 25 60 77 --- On Thu, 3/3/11, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU wrote: From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Subject: Re: Women involved in the DNS To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011, 5:31 PM Karla Valente (ICANN Staff) organizes a "Women in the DNS" breakfast meeting at most ICANN meetings. The SF one will take place on Monday 14 March at 7 a.m. in the venue hotel (Westin St Francis) - I've attended a couple in the past and found them useful and a good way to meet other women working on DNS issues (from business managers to technical folks).   Cheers Mary   Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: David Cake To: Date: 3/3/2011 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [] Fwd: Updated DSSA  list of GNSO volunteersAt 2:08 PM -0500 2/3/11, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >No objections to David or the other volunteers, but do we have any women >who'd like to get more involved in the security and stability issues? I've noticed the same issue, and it is a broader one than NCSG. Check out the gender balance for applications for the SSR Review team http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-applications-en.htm (21 applicants, 100% male). The only women involved in the SSR team are Alice Munyua as GAC appointee, and Alice Jansen as staff liason. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Fri Mar 4 05:58:57 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 07:58:57 +0300 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <4D6EB981.7000808@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I think Milton is right, somebody more attuned with the issues would be a better panelist than me. For the last 3 weeks I have been submerged in some outside-of-ICANN work thus another person would be more resourceful. Thanks, Alex. On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > understand, will be in San Fran on time. > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 4 14:14:06 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:14:06 +0100 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > Date: March 4, 2011 2:01:07 PM GMT+01:00 > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional > > Councillors, > > FYI, please find attached the GAC communiqué from the Brussels meeting. > > Stéphane > >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56570 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 4 14:37:27 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:37:27 -0500 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <741EDD09-99E4-4C2E-93D8-E881B0B443EA@ltu.se> Thanks for forwarding that; Two lines that stick out for me: > Given that there appear to be a number of issues where the Board and the GAC still > need to agree a common approach ... > While fully respecting the Board's right not to accept GAC advice, the GAC is > obliged to ensure that existing rights, the rule of law and the security and protection of > citizens, consumers and businesses, and the principle of national sovereignty for > governments are all maintained within the new environment, as well as respect for > legitimate interests and sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, > geographic and religious significance. The GAC is committed to taking whatever time > is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives. a. On 4 Mar 2011, at 08:14, William Drake wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Stéphane Van Gelder >> Date: March 4, 2011 2:01:07 PM GMT+01:00 >> To: GNSO Council List >> Subject: [council] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional >> >> Councillors, >> >> FYI, please find attached the GAC communiqué from the Brussels meeting. >> >> Stéphane >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> > From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Fri Mar 4 15:26:13 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:26:13 +0900 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: <741EDD09-99E4-4C2E-93D8-E881B0B443EA@ltu.se> Message-ID: <201103041426.p24EQD3d004439@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> > Thanks for forwarding that; > > Two lines that stick out for me: > > > Given that there appear to be a number of issues where the Board and the GAC still > > need to agree a common approach > > ... > > > While fully respecting the Board's right not to accept GAC advice, the GAC is > > obliged to ensure that existing rights, the rule of law and the security and protection of > > citizens, consumers and businesses, and the principle of national sovereignty for > > governments are all maintained within the new environment, as well as respect for > > legitimate interests and sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, > > geographic and religious significance. The GAC is committed to taking whatever time > > is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives. And as soon as all the members of GAC can achieve complete consensus on all these issues and agree and implement treaties, I'm sure that ICANN will happily comply with such new international laws. Until that time, the bottom-up stakeholder approach ICANN's system supposedly embraces provides the only sensible way forward for balancing the needs of the entire connected (and potentially connected) world. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 4 15:49:38 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:49:38 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917ACA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Would appreciate a report on your impressions. Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and systematic report. But hopefully it’s useful nonetheless, and Avri and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN should be providing a report with the board’s assessment of the current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. Before the meeting, the GAC provided a “scorecard” (a somewhat revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on which it was at odds with ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The scorecard built on the GAC’s Cartagena communiqué and new member inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be addressed by a “bylaws consultation” in SF. There the board could formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its decisions. From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems became evident: First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in “the community” were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing “advice” on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn’t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn’t have been allowed to fester. Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn’t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it’s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous “good people” in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can’t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn’t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official “bylaws consultation” in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn’t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn’t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let’s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that “community positions” can bear a substantial imprint of corporate power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit kinder and more mixed than some other folks’. Some of the GAC positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest objectives that I’d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and other aspects in any given instance… In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual understanding. The GAC communiqué, which I just forwarded to the list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully respects the Board’s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. What it doesn’t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I’d want to be in their shoes… Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn’t agree with GAC. The 2’s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN’s supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider them in NCUC/SG. I really can’t dig through the transcript right now to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is that PDT’s statements on at least some weren’t entirely clear and definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular local concern: On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that they can’t pay a company for services because they’re sovereigns etc, I’d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial consequences. On the GAC’s objection to being bound by determinations of the ICC, to be honest I can’t find what the Board said in my notes, hopefully Avri remembers… On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC’s bylaws role from advise to command. That is, “If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,” meant that the GAC’s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it’d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling’s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board “would have little choice but to reject the application.” Not that it legally couldn’t under the bylaws, but that it’d be stupid and self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be brought to bear to persuade it. The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN’s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there’s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN’s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they’ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they’re getting worried, as Stickling’s speech underscores. See also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling’s testy December letter to Beckstrom…. On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many specific issues, a lot of 1A’s and 1B’s as I recall, but a few key 2’ as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another “scorecard?”) should be out soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos’ excellent blog analysis. I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Fri Mar 4 18:50:57 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:50:57 +0000 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for this update Bill – it is certainly very helpful. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Παρασκευή, 4 Μαρτίου 2011 2:50 μμ To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels Hi On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Would appreciate a report on your impressions. Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and systematic report. But hopefully it’s useful nonetheless, and Avri and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN should be providing a report with the board’s assessment of the current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. Before the meeting, the GAC provided a “scorecard” (a somewhat revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on which it was at odds with ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The scorecard built on the GAC’s Cartagena communiqué and new member inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be addressed by a “bylaws consultation” in SF. There the board could formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its decisions. From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems became evident: First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in “the community” were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing “advice” on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn’t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn’t have been allowed to fester. Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn’t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it’s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous “good people” in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can’t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn’t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official “bylaws consultation” in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn’t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn’t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let’s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that “community positions” can bear a substantial imprint of corporate power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit kinder and more mixed than some other folks’. Some of the GAC positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest objectives that I’d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and other aspects in any given instance… In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual understanding. The GAC communiqué, which I just forwarded to the list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully respects the Board’s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. What it doesn’t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I’d want to be in their shoes… Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn’t agree with GAC. The 2’s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN’s supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider them in NCUC/SG. I really can’t dig through the transcript right now to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is that PDT’s statements on at least some weren’t entirely clear and definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular local concern: On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that they can’t pay a company for services because they’re sovereigns etc, I’d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial consequences. On the GAC’s objection to being bound by determinations of the ICC, to be honest I can’t find what the Board said in my notes, hopefully Avri remembers… On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC’s bylaws role from advise to command. That is, “If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,” meant that the GAC’s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it’d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling’s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board “would have little choice but to reject the application.” Not that it legally couldn’t under the bylaws, but that it’d be stupid and self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be brought to bear to persuade it. The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN’s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there’s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN’s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they’ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they’re getting worried, as Stickling’s speech underscores. See also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling’s testy December letter to Beckstrom…. On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many specific issues, a lot of 1A’s and 1B’s as I recall, but a few key 2’ as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another “scorecard?”) should be out soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos’ excellent blog analysis. I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Fri Mar 4 21:31:02 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:31:02 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D714C06.1040308@gmail.com> Thx On 3/4/2011 9:49 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. > > Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I > have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so > this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and > systematic report. But hopefully it’s useful nonetheless, and Avri > and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts > as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on > Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the > several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN > should be providing a report with the board’s assessment of the > current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. > > Before the meeting, the GAC provided a “scorecard” (a somewhat > revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on > which it was at odds with ICANN > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The > scorecard built on the GAC’s Cartagena communiqué and new member > inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. > The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which > the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take > items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be > addressed by a “bylaws consultation” in SF. There the board could > formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any > irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its > decisions. > > From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative > atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were > clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically > bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing > frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an > unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems > became evident: > > First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading > up to the meeting. Many in “the community” were miffed that the GAC > had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, > when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. > Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing > “advice” on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its > new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this > seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is > right about that, clearly there hasn’t been enough good communication > and coordination and this disconnect shouldn’t have been allowed to > fester. > > Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn’t understand its > constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note > that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing > financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on > the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that > people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran > counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, > GAC members would argue that it’s just not possible for them to work > in a different and quicker manner since they have various work > responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and > that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally > with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally > with each other. > > Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage > in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous “good > people” in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, > engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other > techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The > government folks insisted they can’t work that way, they come with > fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the > other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for > re-coordination. As such, they couldn’t give definitive statements of > agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members > palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the > board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the > substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too > surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. > > Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what > happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to > hold an official “bylaws consultation” in SF at which it presumably > could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or > wasn’t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. > Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were > already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded > all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push > toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and > taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn’t > want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to > a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various > speakers felt moved to say please let’s pull back from the brink and > not end in acrimony, etc. > > Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on > the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC > members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the > GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being > inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that > “community positions” can bear a substantial imprint of corporate > power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit > kinder and more mixed than some other folks’. Some of the GAC > positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or > seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate > lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought > through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were > also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest > objectives that I’d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not > to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and > other aspects in any given instance… > > In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the > meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of > specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come > away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. > There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual > understanding. The GAC communiqué, which I just forwarded to the > list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully > respects the Board’s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. > What it doesn’t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is > that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC > members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be > vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not > only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and > got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I’d want to be in their shoes… > > Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the > methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals > (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three > ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice > it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate > and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn’t agree with > GAC. The 2’s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws > consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN’s > supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue > areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider > them in NCUC/SG. I really can’t dig through the transcript right now > to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is > that PDT’s statements on at least some weren’t entirely clear and > definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular > local concern: > > On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the > requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain > circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that > they can’t pay a company for services because they’re sovereigns etc, > I’d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it > to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial > consequences. On the GAC’s objection to being bound by determinations > of the ICC, to be honest I can’t find what the Board said in my notes, > hopefully Avri remembers… > > On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, > the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not > taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments > balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection > to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider > any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. > While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some > principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. > > Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch > talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. > She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that > is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position > should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented > pronouncement that changes GAC’s bylaws role from advise to command. > That is, “If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose > objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the > application,” meant that the GAC’s advise would be to reject, not that > the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit > of a waffle here, since she also felt it’d be exceptionally > ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling’s > much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board “would > have little choice but to reject the application.” Not that it > legally couldn’t under the bylaws, but that it’d be stupid and > self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be > brought to bear to persuade it. > > The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about > ICANN’s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for > intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and > China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global > Internet public policy responsibilities, and there’s fear that this > and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or > control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried > that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their > way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national > interests, and/or that ICANN’s is irredeemably accountable to the > broader international community, they’ll become more receptive to > considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether > that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, > and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do > think they’re getting worried, as Stickling’s speech underscores. See > also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama > Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling’s > testy December letter to Beckstrom…. > > On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar > separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when > there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but > maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing > and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, > there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many > specific issues, a lot of 1A’s and 1B’s as I recall, but a few key 2’ > as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another “scorecard?”) should be out > soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos’ > excellent blog analysis. > > I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to > suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in > the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. > > Cheers, > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 4 21:36:40 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:36:40 -0800 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <72BA8C55-4EE3-4B5B-BABD-D762ADEEB5FB@ipjustice.org> Good stuff, Bill, thanks! On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:49 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. > > Wasn't expecting to be writing one and haven't had time, but ok.. I have a ton of work to do before leaving town Monday for two weeks, so this will be more a matter of sharing some impressions than a full and systematic report. But hopefully it’s useful nonetheless, and Avri and others who attended physically or remotely can add their thoughts as well. In addition, one imagines there will be some blogging on Circle ID and related sites as soon as people are able to digest the several hundred page transcript. In addition, in a couple days ICANN should be providing a report with the board’s assessment of the current state of play regarding areas of (dis)agreement with the GAC. > > Before the meeting, the GAC provided a “scorecard” (a somewhat revealing term) of its consensus positions on 12 new gTLD topics on which it was at odds with ICANN http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-scorecard-23feb11-en.pdf. The scorecard built on the GAC’s Cartagena communiqué and new member inputs, including the controversial US doc discussed here previously. The purpose of the meeting was to talk through the 12 and see on which the differences could be narrowed or reconciled. The hope was to take items off the table, leaving only the most difficult ones to be addressed by a “bylaws consultation” in SF. There the board could formally tell the GAC that it does not accept its advice on any irreconcilable items and would have to provide a rationale for its decisions. > > From the outset, both sides worked to establish a cooperative atmosphere and lots of nice words were exchanged etc. But there were clearly tensions percolating below the surface that would periodically bubble up in certain exchanges, which occurred with increasing frequency as we moved into the second day and spilled over into an unplanned meeting on the third morning. Several overarching problems became evident: > > First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in “the community” were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing “advice” on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn’t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn’t have been allowed to fester. > > Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn’t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it’s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. > > Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous “good people” in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can’t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn’t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. One might add that it also seemed clear the board was better prepared and more focused with respect to the substantive issues than many of its counterparts, which is not too surprising given their respective backgrounds, work responsibilities, etc. > > Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official “bylaws consultation” in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn’t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn’t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let’s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. > > Finally, there were of course significant substantive differences on the individual issues. Scanning the #ICANN twitter feed would give NC members a good sense of how at least some vocal observers viewed the GAC positions, which is to say, not too positively. Not being inherently and implacably anti-government, and recognizing that “community positions” can bear a substantial imprint of corporate power and self-interest, I guess my take on these would be a bit kinder and more mixed than some other folks’. Some of the GAC positions undoubtedly ranged from ill-considered to terrible, or seemed like state power grabbing or pure reflections of corporate lobbying. Some were just a bit muddled, maybe not fully thought through or of questionable ease of implementation etc. But some were also reasonable efforts to promote public or national interest objectives that I’d be astonished and sometimes annoyed for them not to advance. People can disagree about the balance between these and other aspects in any given instance… > > In any event, despite these tensions, it should be said that the meeting managed to make some significant progress on a number of specific points, and that overall the participants were able to come away seeing this as a constructive engagement on which to build. There was unquestionably some convergence and increased mutual understanding. The GAC communiqué, which I just forwarded to the list, reflects that feeling, and promisingly reiterates that GAC fully respects the Board’s right under the bylaws not to accept its advice. What it doesn’t say, but which must be weighing on a lot of minds, is that pushing toward co-regulation will entail a lot of risks for GAC members. I asked a few whether they were really prepared to be vetting hundreds of applications and for the heat they might take not only for opposing some but, by implication, accepting the others, and got rather downbeat responses. Not sure I’d want to be in their shoes… > > Turning briefly from process and atmosphere to substance, the methodology the board adopted was to assign each of the GAC proposals (some of which contained multiple issues/elements) one of three ratings: 1A), advice that it can easily accept and adopt; 1B), advice it accepts in principle but thinks more work is needed to elaborate and implement it; and 2) advice on which it just doesn’t agree with GAC. The 2’s would be the main challenge whenever a bylaws consultation is consensually undertaken. Per previous, ICANN’s supposed to provide an overview of these ratings across the 12 issue areas in the coming days, at which point it will be easier to consider them in NCUC/SG. I really can’t dig through the transcript right now to try to pull out and list each rating, and anyway my recollection is that PDT’s statements on at least some weren’t entirely clear and definitive anyway. But I can mention a few key bits of particular local concern: > > On the objection procedures, the Board seems inclined to relent on the requirements for governments to pay fees, at least under certain circumstances, 1B. Irrespective of what you make of the claim that they can’t pay a company for services because they’re sovereigns etc, I’d say if this gets a big bone of contention out of the way, give it to them and ICANN can figure out how to deal with the financial consequences. On the GAC’s objection to being bound by determinations of the ICC, to be honest I can’t find what the Board said in my notes, hopefully Avri remembers… > > On the procedures for the review of sensitive strings: as we know, the seemingly draconian approach suggested in the US input doc was not taken on board in the scorecard after some of the other governments balked. The scorecard says that any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason, and that the GAC will consider any objection and agree on advice to forward to the ICANN Board. While the former is too expansive and should be bound by some principles, the latter is consistent with the status quo. > > Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC’s bylaws role from advise to command. That is, “If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,” meant that the GAC’s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it’d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling’s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board “would have little choice but to reject the application.” Not that it legally couldn’t under the bylaws, but that it’d be stupid and self-destructive to do so, and presumably political pressure would be brought to bear to persuade it. > > The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN’s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there’s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN’s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they’ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they’re getting worried, as Stickling’s speech underscores. See also the Washington Post article the other day about how the Obama Administration is becoming a critic of ICANN, as well as Stickling’s testy December letter to Beckstrom…. > > On other points discussed previously here: Re: registry/registrar separation, PDT characterized the board as agreeing with GAC that when there is market power, then there needs to be separation, but maintained that the Board has developed a better model for assessing and dealing with such circumstances. And as for the trademark stuff, there seemed to be Board movement toward the GAC concerns on many specific issues, a lot of 1A’s and 1B’s as I recall, but a few key 2’ as well. Again, the ICANN doc (another “scorecard?”) should be out soon with that listing, and in the meanwhile we have Konstantinos’ excellent blog analysis. > > I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. > > Cheers, > > Bill IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 4 21:51:14 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:51:14 -0800 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: <201103041426.p24EQD3d004439@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> Message-ID: <54B752BB-313E-4F83-BE61-0094734ACE81@ipjustice.org> Beautifully stated, Andrew. I hope the ICANN Board sees it your way. Best, Robin On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: >> Thanks for forwarding that; >> >> Two lines that stick out for me: >> >>> Given that there appear to be a number of issues where the Board and the GAC still >>> need to agree a common approach >> >> ... >> >>> While fully respecting the Board's right not to accept GAC advice, the GAC is >>> obliged to ensure that existing rights, the rule of law and the security and protection of >>> citizens, consumers and businesses, and the principle of national sovereignty for >>> governments are all maintained within the new environment, as well as respect for >>> legitimate interests and sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, >>> geographic and religious significance. The GAC is committed to taking whatever time >>> is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives. > > And as soon as all the members of GAC can achieve complete consensus on all > these issues and agree and implement treaties, I'm sure that ICANN will > happily comply with such new international laws. Until that time, the > bottom-up stakeholder approach ICANN's system supposedly embraces provides > the only sensible way forward for balancing the needs of the entire connected > (and potentially connected) world. > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Fri Mar 4 22:13:36 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:13:36 -0500 Subject: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional In-Reply-To: <54B752BB-313E-4F83-BE61-0094734ACE81@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: What seriously got to me about that WP article was that there was literally no mention of other stakeholders anywhere in it. I'd like to see NCUC publish a response to that. j On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Beautifully stated, Andrew. I hope the ICANN Board sees it your way. > > Best, > Robin > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > > > > And as soon as all the members of GAC can achieve complete consensus on > all > > these issues and agree and implement treaties, I'm sure that ICANN will > > happily comply with such new international laws. Until that time, the > > bottom-up stakeholder approach ICANN's system supposedly embraces > provides > > the only sensible way forward for balancing the needs of the entire > connected > > (and potentially connected) world. > > > > -- > > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Sat Mar 5 22:43:21 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:43:21 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917BF6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Bill, This is a great report, and it's the kind of analysis we desperately need as a group to determine our positions and strategy going forward. Thanks for doing it. Let me respond to a few of the points you made. You have provided a very balanced account but on a few occasions I think your striving for balance is giving false credence to rationalizations that governments (especially the US Govt) have made up to justify their actions. First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in "the community" were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing "advice" on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. [Milton L Mueller] I think the GAC response here is absurd. As someone who participated in the early stages of new gTLD policy formulation during and shortly after the March 2007 "Principles" I know that the GAC Principles massively impacted the policy formation process. The whole attempt to come up with MAPO, for example, had no support in the GNSO but was seen by major business constituencies and staff as a necessary to appease GAC. Arguments against MAPO made by NCUC members were ignored by staff because they thought they had their marching orders from GAC. Furthermore, the MAPO regulations were in place almost two years before Suzanne Sene suddenly objected to them at the June Brussels meeting. Same argument applies to the Commerce Departments sudden call for "research" to support the economic need for new gTLDs. In effect, the DoC was asking us to go back to square one. It is obvious that these pressures came from trademark lobbying and nothing else. The "big" issue here is what constitutes a "public policy issue" and "public policy advice"? Over time, GAC has gravitated more and more toward an operational role, i.e., giving itself direct control over outcomes, rather than providing advice on general policies that should be adopted. The veto - or even the watered down version of giving "advice" on individual applications through a Communique - illustrates the difference. When you look at individual applications and ask to be able to object to them "for any reason" you are not providing "policy advice": you are asking to be the one who makes the final decisions about what TLDs can and cannot exist. Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn't been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn't have been allowed to fester. [Milton L Mueller] As I said, the view that there wasn't enough communication is a face-saving, comforting way to construct things. But in my opinion it's false. It would be more accurate to say: as long as the Board doesn't do exactly what the GAC tells it to do, and let the GAC command it any time it wants, we are doing to be hearing about some kind of "disconnect" Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn't understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it's just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. [Milton L Mueller] This difference between the two procedures does indeed exist. And it's important. But what boggles my mind is that no one on the government side seems to remember that this slow, bureaucratic 200-sided multilateral process is PRECISELY WHY WE PUT DNS IN THE HANDS OF ICANN TO BEGIN WITH! We wanted to get DNS out of a situation in which 200 different jurisdictions would try to impose their own law and spend ages trying to work out their differences. Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous "good people" in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can't work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn't give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. [Milton L Mueller] Same comment as above Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official "bylaws consultation" in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn't accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn't want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let's pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. [Milton L Mueller] Again, this to my mind constitutes a clear abuse of process by the GAC. The GAC has no defined process to follow and can just keep all of us hanging. Let's not be naïve about the possibilities for strategic misuse of this latitude. Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC's bylaws role from advise to command. [Milton L Mueller] You've been played. As I've said in another context, the DoC is making beeping noises as it backs its way out of an uncomfortable position. There was nothing "misread" or misinterpreted about the USG's position; there was, however, something deeply embarrassing about it when exposed to the light, and when we made sufficient noise they were forced to back off. I know that Fiona is very good at such retroactive justifications, but I am not buying it. Consider the following facts: - That document was circulated US Commerce Dept itself to "selected" people, one of whom was so shocked by it they sent it to me. Obviosuly they are not interested in the US public's viewpoint, only certain people they think predisposed to agree with them. - When they were first challenged publicly on it and approached by reporters, they did NOT say anything about it being geared toward internal discussions - they defended the position therein. This is documented. - Even if it was only for internal discussion, it was clearly marked as the "USG position for the GAC scorecard." In other words, it was the position that the USG was taking. If they modified it because of our political pressure, what would they have done if we had not generated that pressure? That is, "If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application," meant that the GAC's advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it'd be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling's much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board "would have little choice but to reject the application." [Milton L Mueller] This is they key! In other words, they really DO want the GAC to have a veto. And note that there is no "policy" here - no general set of rules or guidelines that tells us what is allowed and what is not, there is no reliance on international law, there is just "for any reason." So Fiona's whining about being misunderstood is B.S. The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN's preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there's fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. [Milton L Mueller] Oh, this takes the cake! The old "UN will take over the Internet" bogeyman. I know you are reporting on what Fiona said, and doing it well, but let's at least make some common-sensical emendations. Would someone please explain to me why we should want to prevent the UN or any other intergovernmental institution to "take over" ICANN by giving all-encompassing power over it to an...intergovernmental advisory council. At least the UN agencies have treaties and laws and the treaties have to be ratified by national legislatures and follow due process. If we have to choose between GAC and an IGO, I'll go with a duly constituted, treaty-based IGO. The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN's is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they'll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they're getting worried, as Stickling's speech underscores. [Milton L Mueller] The ONLY threat of an Intergovernmental takeover comes from the GAC, and from nowhere else. ITU has been repeatedly rebuffed, and the last Plenipot actually recognized ICANN for the first time; WSIS failed when ICANN was much weaker and more controversial and less attuned to international concerns. I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. [Milton L Mueller] Thanks again! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Sun Mar 6 07:17:53 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:17:53 -0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom Message-ID: <4D732711.1050709@churchofreality.org> I think all of us are on the same page when it comes to freedom on the Internet. But there are other constituencies that see things differently. The difference in viewpoint is about values. Here's the way I see it. The universe has been evolving for the last 13.7 billion years. Life on this planet has evolved into here we are today. But who are we - where are we going - and what does this have to do with the Internet? What makes us different than the other critters inhabiting this planet is that we have evolved the ability to communicate. Humanity has formed a mental network involving billions of minds working together. First we started with language. Then we developed written language allowing information to be passed between people who are not in the same location or time. Then the printing press was a giant leap forward. Then there was radio - television - computers - all expanding the human communication network. And now we have the Internet - which is a network taking us to places we can hardly imagine. The Internet is part of human evolution. It's the most significant step that any species have ever developed. Humanity is at an inflection point where we are transitioning from and evolved species to where we can and will take control over what we will evolve into. Unfortunately our technology is leading our understanding of who we are and what role we will have in the universe and we continue to progress. It is imperative to all of humanity that Internet freedom must prevail in order for us as a species to be as good as we can be. Internet freedom is as basic as talking - as writing - as thinking - as breathing. It is an extension of our collective minds. There are those who have other priorities. Governments want to keep control of their little kingdoms. But these nation states are just all so temporary. And then there's the money interests. Who is going to make a buck off of the web and how do we protect intellectual property from piracy. Yes there will be crime on the Internet. But what is it that's really important here? is it important for governments to keep secrets from the people by shutting down Wikileaks? Or is it more important for people to learn the truth about what governments are up to? Wikileaks has been accused of a lot of things but they haven't been accused of publishing information that isn't true. Do we want to live in a world where the truth is illegal and lying is required? That's not the future that I envision. When a dictator wants to hold onto power in the decade what do they do? The shut down the Internet. That's because the Internet is the way we hold governments accountable. Governments exist to serve the people - not the other way around. We live in an age where corporate interests are expanding all over the planet and they have a lot of money to influence governments. Here in the United States our Supreme Court declared corporation to be people. But corporation aren't people. All the decision showed is who their corporate masters are. The Internet can be a tool of ultimate freedom or ultimate repression. Can you imagine what it would have been like in World War II if today's technology were in the hands of the Nazis? But even though they were defeated there's nothing that prevents something like that from happening again, except the will of the people to make sure that no government gets that kind of power. This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom and oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments shouldn't even be at the table let alone in control. The bottom line for me is this. The freedom of humanity and the future of humanity is more important than government. law, corporations, intellectual property, law enforcement, religion, or money. So it's up to us to draw the line and not let the debate move from values that are more important to values that are less important. We have to make the case that humanity owns the Internet and we're not going to let governments and corporation take it away from us. Marc Perkel First One Church of Reality Keeping it Real From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Sun Mar 6 11:39:39 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:39:39 +0100 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917BF6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <32FE7EC6-A538-44E3-935C-B361CAFBE423@GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> Hi Milton On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Bill, > This is a great report, and it’s the kind of analysis we desperately need as a group to determine our positions and strategy going forward. Thanks for doing it. Sure. Was rushing and when I actually read after sending saw a couple of typos that change meanings but whatever, the main drift is clear. > > Let me respond to a few of the points you made. You have provided a very balanced account but on a few occasions I think your striving for balance is giving false credence to rationalizations that governments (especially the US Govt) have made up to justify their actions. I was mostly just reporting what GACsters said rather than critiquing or endorsing it, but your elaboration below does surface some differences of view, which I suppose at some level reflect our respective left lib vs libertarian politics, or maybe more precisely somewhat different views of the international system and states. Always a fun debate to have... > > First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in “the community” were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing “advice” on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. > [Milton L Mueller] > > I think the GAC response here is absurd. As someone who participated in the early stages of new gTLD policy formulation during and shortly after the March 2007 “Principles” I know that the GAC Principles massively impacted the policy formation process. The whole attempt to come up with MAPO, for example, had no support in the GNSO but was seen by major business constituencies and staff as a necessary to appease GAC. Arguments against MAPO made by NCUC members were ignored by staff because they thought they had their marching orders from GAC. Right, but is the demand for MAPO just offensive power grabbing because that's what states do, or is it also/more defensive, at least on the part of democracies? It's pretty easy to imagine that bureaucrats and their ministries would be keen to avoid situations where vocal domestic constituencies, political higher ups, and the media start jumping up and down about how could you let xyz tld go forward? Moreover, there are international political dimensions given widespread views of ICANN being an out of control US/Northern corporate entity that needs at a minimum intergovernmental oversight. Not saying I agree or favor MAPO, just that there's a mix of motivations, and one suspects it would have been difficult for ICANN to just refuse to consider any sort of mechanism to deal with them. > Furthermore, the MAPO regulations were in place almost two years before Suzanne Sene suddenly objected to them at the June Brussels meeting. Same argument applies to the Commerce Departments sudden call for “research” to support the economic need for new gTLDs. In effect, the DoC was asking us to go back to square one. It is obvious that these pressures came from trademark lobbying and nothing else. Undoubtedly that lobbying is a key driver, it's a short cab ride from K St. to NTIA and the hill. But wanting to slow things down seems overdetermined to me. > > The “big” issue here is what constitutes a “public policy issue” and “public policy advice”? Over time, GAC has gravitated more and more toward an operational role, i.e., giving itself direct control over outcomes, rather than providing advice on general policies that should be adopted. The veto – or even the watered down version of giving “advice” on individual applications through a Communique – illustrates the difference. When you look at individual applications and ask to be able to object to them “for any reason” you are not providing “policy advice”: you are asking to be the one who makes the final decisions about what TLDs can and cannot exist. Yup > > Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn’t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn’t have been allowed to fester. > [Milton L Mueller] > > As I said, the view that there wasn’t enough communication is a face-saving, comforting way to construct things. But in my opinion it’s false. It would be more accurate to say: as long as the Board doesn’t do exactly what the GAC tells it to do, and let the GAC command it any time it wants, we are doing to be hearing about some kind of “disconnect” You think there was enough communication, that GAC and "the community" had fully talked this through and both sides understood each other's concerns and how these could clash etc? I have to say that while I've been on the Council I've seen very little communication with GAC besides the one hour theatre sessions held at ICANN meetings, and basically no internal discussion of the roles and interests of governments. > > Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn’t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it’s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. > [Milton L Mueller] > > This difference between the two procedures does indeed exist. And it’s important. But what boggles my mind is that no one on the government side seems to remember that this slow, bureaucratic 200-sided multilateral process is PRECISELY WHY WE PUT DNS IN THE HANDS OF ICANN TO BEGIN WITH! We wanted to get DNS out of a situation in which 200 different jurisdictions would try to impose their own law and spend ages trying to work out their differences. Ok but the "we" here wasn't most of "them." > > Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous “good people” in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can’t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn’t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Same comment as above > > Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official “bylaws consultation” in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn’t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn’t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let’s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Again, this to my mind constitutes a clear abuse of process by the GAC. The GAC has no defined process to follow and can just keep all of us hanging. Let’s not be naïve about the possibilities for strategic misuse of this latitude. Sure that' possible. But for the board to announce a timetable it must have known GAC would say it can't meet was also a strategic choice. The push back is no surprise. > > Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC’s bylaws role from advise to command. > [Milton L Mueller] > > You’ve been played. Give us a little credit. I was just saying what she argued, that not Avri and I bought it. > As I’ve said in another context, the DoC is making beeping noises as it backs its way out of an uncomfortable position. There was nothing “misread” or misinterpreted about the USG’s position; there was, however, something deeply embarrassing about it when exposed to the light, and when we made sufficient noise they were forced to back off. I know that Fiona is very good at such retroactive justifications, but I am not buying it. Consider the following facts: > - That document was circulated US Commerce Dept itself to “selected” people, one of whom was so shocked by it they sent it to me. Obviosuly they are not interested in the US public’s viewpoint, only certain people they think predisposed to agree with them. > - When they were first challenged publicly on it and approached by reporters, they did NOT say anything about it being geared toward internal discussions – they defended the position therein. This is documented. > - Even if it was only for internal discussion, it was clearly marked as the “USG position for the GAC scorecard.” In other words, it was the position that the USG was taking. If they modified it because of our political pressure, what would they have done if we had not generated that pressure? > > That is, “If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,” meant that the GAC’s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it’d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling’s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board “would have little choice but to reject the application.” > [Milton L Mueller] > > This is they key! In other words, they really DO want the GAC to have a veto. And note that there is no “policy” here – no general set of rules or guidelines that tells us what is allowed and what is not, there is no reliance on international law, there is just “for any reason.” So Fiona’s whining about being misunderstood is B.S. You don't see any difference between saying "the GAC's position would be that it should be vetoed, and we think it'd be politically unwise to proceed over that objection," vs. "ICANN is formally obliged to agree"? I agree with you that it was a horrid proposal and that they hoped the board would feel pressured to oblige, but it didn't entail a bylaws change. > > The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN’s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there’s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Oh, this takes the cake! The old “UN will take over the Internet” bogeyman. I know you are reporting on what Fiona said, and doing it well, but let’s at least make some common-sensical emendations. Would someone please explain to me why we should want to prevent the UN or any other intergovernmental institution to “take over” ICANN by giving all-encompassing power over it to an…intergovernmental advisory council. At least the UN agencies have treaties and laws and the treaties have to be ratified by national legislatures and follow due process. If we have to choose between GAC and an IGO, I’ll go with a duly constituted, treaty-based IGO. Really? Wouldn't that have a greater likelihood of institutionalizing all the kinds of dynamics you despise than say an improved, more serious, rule bound GAC? > > The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN’s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they’ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they’re getting worried, as Stickling’s speech underscores. > [Milton L Mueller] > > The ONLY threat of an Intergovernmental takeover comes from the GAC, and from nowhere else. ITU has been repeatedly rebuffed, and the last Plenipot actually recognized ICANN for the first time; WSIS failed when ICANN was much weaker and more controversial and less attuned to international concerns. ITU may not be the only game in town, and who knows what the intergovernmental dialogue will look like if the launching of potentially hundreds of new gTLDs leads to backlashes etc. I agree with you at present, but this is a fluid and unpredictable environment, so it's not necessarily a strict either/or, either the US is just using "the other" or it has real concerns about the known unknowns and believes ICANN leadership is ignoring this at its peril. All grist for the mill next Friday and beyond… Cheers Bill > > > I really do have to work on my course lectures, so this will have to suffice for now as a starting point, and hopefully others can fill in the picture on the zillion issues not mentioned. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Thanks again! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 14:21:52 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:21:52 +0300 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D732711.1050709@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: "The more things change, the more they remain the same.” - Alphonse Karr. There is no doubt that the Internet is so far the single greatest invention by man. But we realize, as historically with all other great resources, that self-serving 'money, power and control' influences have creep onto it. We are living at that moment in history where later generations will learn the process how (or if?) the open Internet was finally grabbed for a thereafter restoration of 'traditional' exploitations. Will the Internet, in the end, serve as a powerful tool of re-occupation, weaker societies' intellectual assets theft and perpetuation of widespread human rights abuses? Considering that private entities are the implementers of this new order as the opposed to hitherto gun trotting powerful foreign governments, does this arrangement of norms ensure that they get away with *anything* since are excused as private corporations? What has not changed is the fact that those with tons of money and power progressively either buying or bulldozing their way into controlling the Internet and the rest of society, regardless of their nation states. One sees on the Internet many bent on furthering an Africa serving the rest world as a source of raw materials - from slavery (raw material labour beings), industrial inputs, agricultural inputs etc. to now "raw material knowledge"? A great many still do not believe or accept that Africa has own refined knowledge and all round innovation, also threatened. Innovation re-colonization may already be taking place faster than we imagined. Like the old "discoverers" technology scouts are out around the world collecting nuggets of local technologies and rushing them through IP registrations back at their homes jurisdictions. Regardless of if we expect an even greater technology to be invented in future or not, one suspects that our distant folk, all waiting to be born, will undergo the same old "money, power and control" motions:-) regards, Alex On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Marc Perkel wrote: > I think all of us are on the same page when it comes to freedom on the > Internet. But there are other constituencies that see things differently. > The difference in viewpoint is about values. > > Here's the way I see it. The universe has been evolving for the last 13.7 > billion years. Life on this planet has evolved into here we are today. But > who are we - where are we going - and what does this have to do with the > Internet? > > What makes us different than the other critters inhabiting this planet is > that we have evolved the ability to communicate. Humanity has formed a > mental network involving billions of minds working together. First we > started with language. Then we developed written language allowing > information to be passed between people who are not in the same location or > time. Then the printing press was a giant leap forward. Then there was radio > - television - computers - all expanding the human communication network. > And now we have the Internet - which is a network taking us to places we can > hardly imagine. The Internet is part of human evolution. It's the most > significant step that any species have ever developed. > > Humanity is at an inflection point where we are transitioning from and > evolved species to where we can and will take control over what we will > evolve into. Unfortunately our technology is leading our understanding of > who we are and what role we will have in the universe and we continue to > progress. > > It is imperative to all of humanity that Internet freedom must prevail in > order for us as a species to be as good as we can be. Internet freedom is as > basic as talking - as writing - as thinking - as breathing. It is an > extension of our collective minds. > > There are those who have other priorities. Governments want to keep control > of their little kingdoms. But these nation states are just all so temporary. > And then there's the money interests. Who is going to make a buck off of the > web and how do we protect intellectual property from piracy. Yes there will > be crime on the Internet. > > But what is it that's really important here? is it important for governments > to keep secrets from the people by shutting down Wikileaks? Or is it more > important for people to learn the truth about what governments are up to? > Wikileaks has been accused of a lot of things but they haven't been accused > of publishing information that isn't true. Do we want to live in a world > where the truth is illegal and lying is required? That's not the future that > I envision. > > When a dictator wants to hold onto power in the decade what do they do? The > shut down the Internet. That's because the Internet is the way we hold > governments accountable. Governments exist to serve the people - not the > other way around. > > We live in an age where corporate interests are expanding all over the > planet and they have a lot of money to influence governments. Here in the > United States our Supreme Court declared corporation to be people. But > corporation aren't people. All the decision showed is who their corporate > masters are. > > The Internet can be a tool of ultimate freedom or ultimate repression. Can > you imagine what it would have been like in World War II if today's > technology were in the hands of the Nazis? But even though they were > defeated there's nothing that prevents something like that from happening > again, except the will of the people to make sure that no government gets > that kind of power. > > This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom and > oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments shouldn't even > be at the table let alone in control. > > The bottom line for me is this. The freedom of humanity and the future of > humanity is more important than government. law, corporations, intellectual > property, law enforcement, religion, or money. So it's up to us to draw the > line and not let the debate move from values that are more important to > values that are less important. We have to make the case that humanity owns > the Internet and we're not going to let governments and corporation take it > away from us. > > Marc Perkel > First One > Church of Reality > Keeping it Real > From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 14:54:57 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 07:54:57 -0600 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Alex, et all, > There is no doubt that the Internet is so far the single greatest > invention by man. With all due respect I disagree, there are many other inventions and achievements by man which without them there would be no Internet. Some thoughts are interesting and well intended, but to develop a better ground to analyze some of these issues we need to strip ourselves of the government control fobia. The Internet is just a communication service or tool, what people do with it its what makes it different. My biggest concern is that the new gTLD program continue to be flawed because it will not provide additional competition and equal access, not only we are spending an incredible amount of resources, we are enabling particular sectors to control and do governance by proxy with ICANN and there is no fair balance on the benefits where companies, IP holders and governments get with this program. IMHO we are riding on a dead horse. My .02 Jorge From avri at LTU.SE Sun Mar 6 16:10:39 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:10:39 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D732711.1050709@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4C7B2AE3-D61C-453B-A9EC-A7D68D30F353@ltu.se> On 6 Mar 2011, at 01:17, Marc Perkel wrote: > > This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom and oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments shouldn't even be at the table let alone in control. While as a utopian normative statement, i might want to agree, the point is they are in control of our lives and bringing them to the table is a step in the right direction. a. From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 17:45:46 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:45:46 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D73BA3A.5030104@gmail.com> Hi Jorge, I have to disagree on 2 points (or 1 and a half). We should judge the importance of the Internet by putting it on the axis of discoveries that includes the printing press. Seen from this light, the Internet might very well be the most important invention ever. Especially if we take a step back and we say that "Internet" is a "process", an emergent thing, then its place at the very top of our list of important invention is, i would say, very much settled. (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very deserving also) On the relevance of identifying as the main axis of contention that of "government control vs multi-stakeholderism", and of fighting over this axis, i would also say that it is proper. I'm not sure if you were fully making the point that is should not be the main axis of contention, but if you were, i would have to disagree. It's not the only axis of contention on which we should dwell, by far, but it is an important one. To quote a very interesting Canadian (Bill St-Arnaud), "While Gutenberg did invent the printing press he only saw it as a tool for more efficient copying of the Bible. It was an Englishman named William Tyndale who grasped the significance of the printing press as a way of mass distribution and educating the masses. For his troubles he was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church – a fate that many telco executives, movie and record producers could only wish upon those who are fighting for an open Internet today." Nicolas On 3/6/2011 8:54 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > Hi Alex, et all, > >> There is no doubt that the Internet is so far the single greatest >> invention by man. > With all due respect I disagree, there are many other inventions and > achievements by man which without them there would be no Internet. > > Some thoughts are interesting and well intended, but to develop a > better ground to analyze some of these issues we need to strip > ourselves of the government control fobia. > > The Internet is just a communication service or tool, what people do > with it its what makes it different. > > My biggest concern is that the new gTLD program continue to be flawed > because it will not provide additional competition and equal access, > not only we are spending an incredible amount of resources, we are > enabling particular sectors to control and do governance by proxy with > ICANN and there is no fair balance on the benefits where companies, IP > holders and governments get with this program. > > IMHO we are riding on a dead horse. > > My .02 > Jorge From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Sun Mar 6 17:56:09 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 08:56:09 -0800 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC Message-ID: <716C5089-9397-4B99-BCD3-4F3F9BB17183@ipjustice.org> Chair of ICANN's Board responded via email to Govts (GAC) on policy disagreements & compromises for top-level Internet domain names: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05mar11-en.pdf IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 18:06:28 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at GMAIL.COM (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 13:06:28 -0400 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello everyone: Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her directly at ana.neves at umic.pt For those who may not be aware of her background, here is a link to her LinkedIn profile: http://pt.linkedin.com/pub/ana-cristina-neves/12/803/420 I do hope this helps. Rgds, Tracy On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > I think Milton is right, somebody more attuned with the issues would be a > better panelist than me. For the last 3 weeks I have been submerged in some > outside-of-ICANN work thus another person would be more resourceful. Thanks, > Alex. > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow >> things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory >> and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I >> understand, will be in San Fran on time. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > Why not put Carlos on the panel? >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Sun Mar 6 18:47:44 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:47:44 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <24C8F5AD-F113-4DD8-96F3-3D805AEC8E21@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Thanks for the information, Tracy. Ana's very good, but she represents an industrialized country government, one that has been fairly vocal in opposing the sort of proposals being advanced by key developing countries for a greater governmental and intergovernmental role. What I and I've learned others had in mind was a bit different. As I said previously, I've been trying to get a developing country government representative for several weeks. I tried to recruit Olga Cavalli, who formally represented Argentina in GAC and is now a GNSO nomcom appointee, but it turned out her flight gets in too late. I tried to get Alice Munyua from the Kenyan government and GAC co-chair, but heard from her on Friday that she can't make it. I've now got an invitation out to Mme Ndéye Maimouna Diop Diagne of Senegal, but have yet to hear back. If that doesn't work, I thought about trying Katim or Gonzalo from the Board, or else trying to get Alex to change his mind (nothing wrong with having all civil society & technical community panelists, I guess). It's not so easy when you move from general desires to who's actually coming, will be there on time, is interested, and is prone to frequently read and rapidly reply to email. To be honest, I think it's a little awkward to be discussing the potential fit and prospects of speaker options on a public list; some people would not necessarily prefer to learn they were a discussion topic, particularly if they're not ultimately invited. If there are folks who'd like to provide more input or be kept abreast of efforts to fill this panel slot, it might be better to take it off line. I'm traveling from tomorrow but will have access when not in transit. Best, Bill On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hello everyone: > > Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. > > If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her directly at ana.neves at umic.pt > > For those who may not be aware of her background, here is a link to her LinkedIn profile: > > http://pt.linkedin.com/pub/ana-cristina-neves/12/803/420 > > I do hope this helps. > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > I think Milton is right, somebody more attuned with the issues would be a better panelist than me. For the last 3 weeks I have been submerged in some outside-of-ICANN work thus another person would be more resourceful. Thanks, Alex. > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > No, I cannot do it, as I said. I am having nearly no time to follow > things up -- actually I am going to Icann this time to refresh my memory > and understanding of the zillion issues. I strongly suggest Alex who, I > understand, will be in San Fran on time. > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2011 02:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Why not put Carlos on the panel? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 19:41:22 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:41:22 -0600 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D73BA3A.5030104@gmail.com> Message-ID: > (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very > deserving also) I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like the atomic bomb ... As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps more important has been the invention of the written word. The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc recommendations. IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit about governance, IP & commercial interests, yada, yada, we are loosing. We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." My .02 Jorge From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 20:02:37 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:02:37 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <716C5089-9397-4B99-BCD3-4F3F9BB17183@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4D73DA4D.1080008@gmail.com> I have to say that except a few points, i agree with how the Board classified GAC's requests. Point 5 on the integration of registries and registrars: My beef with institutionalizing a market [no market can ever be deemed pre-political, pre-cultural or pre-legal, so ... a market always is institutionnalized ==> that should take care of "regulation/anti-regulations" debates] where the rules of the game favor integration is that, under the actual terms of national competition laws, "market power" is a theoretical impossibility. IMHO, as a general rule but the devil is in the details, for the markets with amazingly complex and extended value chains ==> let's just try a market devoid of the "power" variable for a change, and see what it would get us. In my mind, that would be true "laisser faire", while the usual "laisser faire" [i.e. enabling integration] is in fact more about letting competition use other strategical assets [such as power] than just cost, price, productivity, and performance. This analysis can be showed wrong for some particular markets, and maybe names and numbers are such a market... I will admit that i have spent less time thinking about the particular integration impact of registry and registrar operations then i have for other markets (i.e. telecommunications services markets), and I will welcome your references on this point. In any case, except for this view of mine which i don't expect to be shared accross NCUC members, i have to say that i find myself well represented by the Board in its answer to the GAC. Some other points: 6.2.1 if the timeframe for a responding party is too short already. Don't know about that. Not sure what to think about 6.2.5 either. However, the Board's consistent 2s in the 6.2.x issues are commendable. 6.2.10.1 is outright funny ;) I am uneasy with some compromises (e.g. 6.4.2) but ... Nicolas On 3/6/2011 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > Chair of ICANN's Board responded via email to Govts (GAC) on policy disagreements& compromises for top-level Internet domain names: > http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05mar11-en.pdf > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Sun Mar 6 20:10:40 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:10:40 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D73DC30.6090501@gmail.com> Yes, Jorge, you're very right on everything. I like to ask people who might not be so impressed as i am with the multi-faceted magnificence of the Internet chains-of-inventions: "How important do you think the printing press was?" People usually pause at this, but there are many other cool things out there. Cheers. Nicolas On 3/6/2011 1:41 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Sun Mar 6 20:41:21 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:41:21 -0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D73E361.4060500@churchofreality.org> Yes there were many thing leading up to the Internet. The invention of the transistor for example. The Internet however brings minds together from all over the world and allows for mental networking on a whole new scale. Human evolution is not about gene mutations anymore. It's about information and technology evolution. The Internet allows information to be stored and distributed like never before. On 3/6/2011 10:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge > From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Sun Mar 6 21:00:42 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:00:42 -0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4C7B2AE3-D61C-453B-A9EC-A7D68D30F353@ltu.se> Message-ID: At 10:10 AM -0500 3/6/11, Avri Doria wrote: >On 6 Mar 2011, at 01:17, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> >> This is what I see as the stakes in the balance of power between freedom >>and oppression and freedom must win. The way I see it governments >>shouldn't even be at the table let alone in control. > > >While as a utopian normative statement, i might want to agree, the point >is they are in control of our lives and bringing them to the table is a >step in the right direction. > This is a fine pragmatic sentiment, and generally I can agree with the overall intent here. However the details make a difference (or in cliche terms, the devil is in the details): *how* one brings them to the table makes a difference. In particular, you want to make sure they don't abjectly take over the table as a precondition for coming to it. How do you tame a tiger, when the tiger is ultimately in control in the larger global context? This is a delicate balancing act, and those who are wary of it have every right to be. Structural issues of governance protocol are paramount, and deserve to be examined with a fine-toothed comb. Think about general principles such as separation and balance of powers, which are what makes real democracies actually work, to the extent that they do work and aren't entirely captured by plutocracy "under the hood." These separations are absolutely critical, and cannot be allowed to present a "rhetorical front" without teeth or meaning in practice, which is worse than not having the separation at all, because it presents the *illusion* of separation that undermines action to make the separation real ("nothing to see hear, let's move along, now..."). Dan PS: I just want to say how much I'm enjoying Milton and Bill's exchange. Many insights that I would not have much access to otherwise. The combination of long experience and direct observation is something that is less common among those of us with less experience and history with ICANN, and the more this can be disseminated among the rest of us, the better (given that most of us are engaging this pro bono, which limits our capacity to absorb details and evaluate them in a broad context). -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. From mueller at SYR.EDU Sun Mar 6 23:37:39 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:37:39 -0500 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Well put > -----Original Message----- > > In particular, you want to make sure they don't abjectly take over the > table as a precondition for coming to it. > From mueller at SYR.EDU Sun Mar 6 23:43:32 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:43:32 -0500 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Tracy: Thanks for your effort. However, the original "concern" came from the fact that there was not enough people from "the South" on the panel. Typically this means non-European/North American and from developing countries. A governmental rep from Portugal is probably not what these objectors had in mind (especially if Bill is right that this one has not been that supportive of the LDC perspective). --MM From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:06 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event program Hello everyone: Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her directly at ana.neves at umic.pt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nhklein at GMX.NET Mon Mar 7 01:36:05 2011 From: nhklein at GMX.NET (nhklein) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:36:05 +0700 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D742875.7000500@gmx.net> Thanks, Milton - it is so often "the South" as you paraphrase it, and not "the South of Europe" that is left out. And therefore we had also discussions time and again that our colleagues from Australia/NewZealand (though in the ICANN defined "Asia Pacific Region") are not representing the majority of Africa/Asia/Latin American situations (though they are welcome representing, officially, the countries in the AP region). Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia On 03/07/2011 05:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Tracy: > > Thanks for your effort. However, the original "concern" came from the > fact that there was not enough people from "the South" on the panel. > Typically this means non-European/North American and from developing > countries. A governmental rep from Portugal is probably not what these > objectors had in mind (especially if Bill is right that this one has > not been that supportive of the LDC perspective). > > --MM > > *From:*NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On > Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Sent:* Sunday, March 06, 2011 12:06 PM > *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] a concern regarding the ncuc event > program > > Hello everyone: > > Ana Neves - Portugal's representative to the GAC, and a key member of > the GAC team examining the gTLD issue, "Providing Opportunities to all > Stakeholders including Developing Countries" , has indicated her > availability and willingness to participate in the NCUC Panel. > > If this is acceptable to the NCUC Event organizers, please contact her > directly at ana.neves at umic.pt > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Mon Mar 7 02:54:18 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:54:18 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <716C5089-9397-4B99-BCD3-4F3F9BB17183@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <201103070154.p271sILl024863@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections seems very strange. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From tinwee at BIC.NUS.EDU.SG Mon Mar 7 03:04:13 2011 From: tinwee at BIC.NUS.EDU.SG (Tan Tin Wee) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:04:13 +0800 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D743D1D.1060604@bic.nus.edu.sg> Indeed, in the early nineties, when I was taking over the running of the Internet services in my country, I asked the guy whom I was taking over, what makes the Internet work, Dr Tommi Chen told me, it is obvious, the "Internet spirit of voluntarism", of which many in this forum exemplify. Thanks for your keen sense of this Internet spirit! bestrgds tinwee On 3/7/2011 2:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) >> > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 7 03:04:57 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:04:57 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <201103070154.p271sILl024863@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> Message-ID: <6B810150-D74A-4ACB-89DC-CE38232ABD16@ltu.se> Hi, I have no real issue with the GAC being able to object without paying a fee as long the applicant does not have to pay a fee to respond to the objections. The application fee is so obscenely high and padded with a fortune in 'insurance' against possible litigation (i guess close to 100K or the 185K ) that I think the program in general can cover the fees for the making of and responding to Government objections and still be well within the guideline to be cost neutral to ICANN. In fact I think ICANN is going to have to work had to have the program be cost neutral as opposed to profitable. a. On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:54, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that > governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a > gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections > and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are > not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD > already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the > board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections > seems very strange. > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID Mon Mar 7 03:06:48 2011 From: rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID (Rudi Rusdiah) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:06:48 +0700 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D743DB8.2090905@rad.net.id> internet for me is a technology allow us to connect to you easily.. no additional cost... no barrier customs, time and space... before... in 1996 this is not possible for us in indonesia... and still not possible in some remote village :-) note: 1. next week we will install an wardes (village netcafe) in a remote district called Long Bawan, east kalimantan province (borneo highland) ... remote district no road access... no electricity ( the river water electric generator was not working for 8 months)... of course no internet for most of the people there... but they live prosperous exporting salt, vegetable and rice to sarawak (malaysia) and brunei. 2. prosperous means not under poverty... enough food, school for the kids till highschool and there is a christian seminary there... most of the people are dayak tribe (long daya) and christian On 03/07/2011 01:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >> deserving also) >> > I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet > under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like > the atomic bomb ... > > As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to > increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps > more important has been the invention of the written word. > > The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call > "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML > and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a > high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. > > Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet > and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the > kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and > implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc > recommendations. > > IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that > since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across > borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of > nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational > background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the > "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit > about governance, IP& commercial interests, yada, yada, we are > loosing. > > We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del > chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something > like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." > > My .02 > Jorge > > > From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 7 06:21:24 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:21:24 -0600 Subject: Thoughts about Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4D743DB8.2090905@rad.net.id> Message-ID: > internet for me is a technology allow us to connect to you easily.. no > additional cost... no barrier customs, time and space... > > before... in 1996 this is not possible for us in indonesia...  and still not > possible in some  remote village :-) Glad to know you keep the spirit and keep working to get more people connected. Ages ago, and funny now that we have the UN-ITU-IGF-WSIS circus, small projects run under the umbrella of UNDP and some ONGs (Carlos and others from APC may remember), many of us early young net activist geeks use to travel around the world carrying a modem and disks with a UUCP version for PC's. In the early days of the network in Argentina, before we were able to establish the very first permanent connection, at the University of Buenos Aires and in cooperation with the IT project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (another UNDP one), we enabled dialup accounts for remote nodes using UUCP, yes we all were craving for a better connection but having at least email was a tremendous progress for many remote locations. We were duplicating diskettes like AOL was mailing CDs. Technology normally helps to make things easier, faster, better, what makes it possible is PEOPLE !! Another gig I was involved during my tenure on different UNDP projects, was actually working with other folks to make a "bridge" between the UN internal email system (I believe it was called billings, can't remember now) and get UN NY DMIS (Data Management Information Services) hooked up with JVNcNet (one of the old regionals of the NSFNet era), many said that it was an impossible thing to do, technically and bureaucratically, we just did it and undp.org was born. I'm really sad to see that as a civil society group with non commercial interests it seems that now to be in the picture we have to learn to dance at the beat of somebody else's music. The GAC or any other form of para-intergovernmental arrangement will keep trying at any cost and with all resources to gain control, not because they know what to do with it, just because is intrinsic for each government to show who is in control, will see what the BoD has to say about all this ... have fun in SFO, was planning to go but other priorities keep me on the sidelines and with no much time to participate and contribute more. Cheers Jorge > > note: 1. next week we will install an wardes (village netcafe) in a remote > district called Long Bawan, east kalimantan province (borneo highland) ... > remote district no road access... no electricity ( the river water electric > generator was not working for 8 months)... of course no internet for most of > the people there... but they live prosperous exporting salt, vegetable and > rice to sarawak (malaysia) and brunei. > 2. prosperous means not under poverty... enough food, school for the kids > till highschool and there is a christian seminary there... most of the > people are dayak tribe (long daya) and christian > > On 03/07/2011 01:41 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >>> >>> (That being said, i can see that some other "inventions" might be very >>> deserving also) >>> >> >> I'd give you just one, without vaccines many of us would be 6 feet >> under, there are many "inventions", not all of them that great like >> the atomic bomb ... >> >> As you said the printing press has been a great achievement to >> increase the efficiency to distribute the written word, but perhaps >> more important has been the invention of the written word. >> >> The Internet today is a conglomerate of many things that you can call >> "inventions" or "achievements in technology", Internet without HTML >> and the DNS would not be the same, etc. It would be hard to imagine a >> high performance router made out of vacuum tubes. >> >> Without the invention of packet switching there would be no Internet >> and you would probably be complaining to the PTT for the price of the >> kilo-octet and dealing with many different interpretations and >> implementations (being there, done that) of ITU-T formerly CCITT X.abc >> recommendations. >> >> IMHO the best and more notorious side effect of the Internet is that >> since its conception we learned to work in a cooperative manner across >> borders, to "freely" share information and experiences, regardless of >> nationality, color, religion, sexual orientation, educational >> background, etc. What makes Internet unique and so relevant is the >> "spirit" of the people which (excuse my french) with all this shit >> about governance, IP&  commercial interests, yada, yada, we are >> loosing. >> >> We have an old proverb in spanish that says "La culpa no es del >> chancho, sino del que le da de comer", in english would be something >> like "Don't blame the pig, blame those who feed it." >> >> My .02 >> Jorge >> >> >> > > From ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP Mon Mar 7 06:49:27 2011 From: ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:49:27 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <6B810150-D74A-4ACB-89DC-CE38232ABD16@ltu.se> Message-ID: Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and culture trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will happen with new gTLDs. Why should they pay to protect something connected with national sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual or corporate) gain, but for citizens. In the TLD space many have gone through a redelegation to get their ccTLD "back". I'm not sure I see its as getting the thing "back", but some govt do. There's no fee involved in a redelegation. But it's extremely costly. Some I think see new objection process as a kind of extension of the same -- an externally imposed cost. It costs to object, govt will need staff to do something, might even need a lawyer... The fee ICANN asks for might be small, there may be higher costs. Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind to a private sector organization. Doesn't matter if just a couple of hundred dollars, there is no mechanism to make a payment. People involved on the IGF will remember many govt cannot give money to support the forum for the same reason: it's an odd organization, doesn't fit with most govt budget lines so they can't give when many genuinely want to. And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, particularly given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. And Avri's very likely right. Adam >Hi, > >I have no real issue with the GAC being able to object without >paying a fee as long the applicant does not have to pay a fee to >respond to the objections. > >The application fee is so obscenely high and padded with a fortune >in 'insurance' against possible litigation (i guess close to 100K or >the 185K ) that I think the program in general can cover the fees >for the making of and responding to Government objections and still >be well within the guideline to be cost neutral to ICANN. In fact I >think ICANN is going to have to work had to have the program be cost >neutral as opposed to profitable. > >a. > >On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:54, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > >> It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that >> governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a >> gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections >> and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are >> not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD >> already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the >> board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections >> seems very strange. >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Mon Mar 7 06:57:37 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:57:37 +0100 Subject: a concern regarding the ncuc event program In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 6, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Tracy: > Thanks for your effort. However, the original “concern” came from the fact that there was not enough people from “the South” on the panel. Typically this means non-European/North American and from developing countries. A governmental rep from Portugal is probably not what these objectors had in mind (especially if Bill is right that this one has not been that supportive of the LDC perspective). Again, she is very good and supportive of development concerns in ICANN, IGF etc, but she's from the North and has not been an advocate of a G77-style position on intergovernmentalism. That profile is already on the panel. Please let's discuss possible speakers off list and coordinate any outreach to avoid further awkwardness. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Mon Mar 7 07:29:36 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 01:29:36 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C22@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely > trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and culture > trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for > example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will happen > with new gTLDs. Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who has the proper right to use words. It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part, which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)? Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first. > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national > sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual or > corporate) gain, but for citizens. Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national sovereignty? Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the domain name space? > Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind to > a private sector organization. Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a sovereign right to seat 23 A? > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, particularly > given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. What principle would that be? From ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO Mon Mar 7 07:52:07 2011 From: ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:52:07 +0200 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C22@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20110307065207.GA14227@baribal.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:29:36AM -0500, Milton L Mueller (mueller at SYR.EDU) wrote: > Can you point me to the international law that says only the > Peruvian government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in > the domain name space? Amusingly, "peru" is a word in Finnish, or actually two: as a noun it means "potato" in a number of dialects (abbreviated from "peruna" in standard Finnish), and as a verb it means "cancel". A bit more relevant, e.g., "peru.org" and "peru.fi" belong to US and Finnish companies, respectively, selling travels to Peru, and I doubt they've asked permission from Peruvian government either. -- Tapani Tarvainen From ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP Mon Mar 7 08:47:04 2011 From: ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:47:04 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C22@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Just passing on what I hear, not presenting opinions. > > -----Original Message----- >> Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely >> trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and culture >> trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for >> example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will happen >> with new gTLDs. > >Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who >has the proper right to use words. >It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have >been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have >spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use >that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part, >which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)? > >Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic >expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that >narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer >protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get >to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the >world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first. An example I've heard is Kikoi/Kikoy, a type of traditional Kenyan cloth. UK company tried to trademark the name. Happens all the time. Very expensive, annoying, etc to challenge. It's not particular to ICANN and the DNS, everything from culture to traditional medicines. And "sorry you didn't get there first" doesn't seem to make people happy. I wonder why... > > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national >> sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual or >> corporate) gain, but for citizens. > >Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national sovereignty? >Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States >Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can >you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian >government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the >domain name space? > >> Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind to >> a private sector organization. > >Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a >sovereign right to seat 23 A? Not sure your example's relevant. I don't understand govt budgets so won't try to make up an answer. But if a room full of government reps, developed and developing country, say we do not have a budget line for this kind of payment, I think a good idea to take what they say at face value. > > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, particularly >> given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. > >What principle would that be? ? ? ? Adam From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 7 14:38:44 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:38:44 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D74DFE4.9050003@gmail.com> Isn't gTLD enlargement at least in part proposed to, in time, kill the many contestations over who owns a given alphanumeric string? I mean, with a limitless gTLD space, isn't the message: "market, disseminate, develop [your brand and its chosen gTLD] rather than protect [it]?" I don't think it's too much to ask for gvnmt to pay for whatever contestations they have. In turn, ICANN should ban domain tasting. Is this already being done? Nicolas On 3/7/2011 2:47 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Just passing on what I hear, not presenting opinions. > > >> > -----Original Message----- >>> Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely >>> trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and >>> culture >>> trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for >>> example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will >>> happen >>> with new gTLDs. >> >> Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who >> has the proper right to use words. >> It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have >> been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have >> spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use >> that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part, >> which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)? >> >> Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic >> expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that >> narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer >> protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get >> to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the >> world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first. > > > > An example I've heard is Kikoi/Kikoy, a type of traditional Kenyan > cloth. UK company tried to trademark the name. Happens all the > time. Very expensive, annoying, etc to challenge. It's not particular > to ICANN and the DNS, everything from culture to traditional > medicines. And "sorry you didn't get there first" doesn't seem to > make people happy. I wonder why... > > > >> > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national >>> sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal >>> (individual or >>> corporate) gain, but for citizens. >> >> Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national >> sovereignty? >> Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States >> Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can >> you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian >> government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the >> domain name space? >> >>> Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this >>> kind to >>> a private sector organization. >> >> Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a >> sovereign right to seat 23 A? > > > Not sure your example's relevant. I don't understand govt budgets so > won't try to make up an answer. But if a room full of government reps, > developed and developing country, say we do not have a budget line for > this kind of payment, I think a good idea to take what they say at > face value. > > >> > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, >> particularly >>> given ICANN's odd international status. Matter of principle. >> >> What principle would that be? > > > ? ? ? > > Adam From mueller at SYR.EDU Mon Mar 7 19:16:53 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:16:53 -0500 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <4D74DFE4.9050003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ideally, everyone would adopt this reasonable attitude. Domain tasting has been eliminated as far as I know. It was a predictable outcome of ICANN's approach to a "grace period" and I think it has been fixed. > -----Original Message----- > Isn't gTLD enlargement at least in part proposed to, in time, kill the > many contestations over who owns a given alphanumeric string? I mean, > with a limitless gTLD space, isn't the message: "market, disseminate, > develop [your brand and its chosen gTLD] rather than protect [it]?" I > don't think it's too much to ask for gvnmt to pay for whatever > contestations they have. In turn, ICANN should ban domain tasting. Is > this already being done? > > Nicolas > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 7 21:34:52 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:34:52 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels In-Reply-To: <32FE7EC6-A538-44E3-935C-B361CAFBE423@GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> Message-ID: <68D6E5B6-4FDC-4B48-9FC4-B12CA1A10EA7@ltu.se> Adding my view as another who was there. On 6 Mar 2011, at 05:39, William Drake wrote: > Hi Milton > > On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Bill, >> This is a great report, and it’s the kind of analysis we desperately need as a group to determine our positions and strategy going forward. Thanks for doing it. > > Sure. Was rushing and when I actually read after sending saw a couple of typos that change meanings but whatever, the main drift is clear. >> >> Let me respond to a few of the points you made. You have provided a very balanced account but on a few occasions I think your striving for balance is giving false credence to rationalizations that governments (especially the US Govt) have made up to justify their actions. > > I was mostly just reporting what GACsters said rather than critiquing or endorsing it, but your elaboration below does surface some differences of view, which I suppose at some level reflect our respective left lib vs libertarian politics, or maybe more precisely somewhat different views of the international system and states. Always a fun debate to have... >> >> First, there was a lot of mutual frustration about the process leading up to the meeting. Many in “the community” were miffed that the GAC had waited to formally put down its markers until to the 11th hour, when the launch of new gTLDs was thought to finally be imminent. Conversely, the GAC maintained that it had in fact been providing “advice” on its concerns since at least the March 2007 release of its new gTLD Principles, but that ICANN had simply chosen not to take this seriously. This is one of the GAC claims that I have problems with. At the beginning of the new gTLD process GAC had a liaison on the GNSO who actually participated and I believe attended some of the discussions meetings. I also know that they were frequently invited and that I made a report to the GAC at every meeting of what was going on and the degree to which we had taken their principles into account. The issue is, they did not, and still for the most part do not, want to take part in the nitty gritty work of building the policies. They look down on the people participating in the WGs and SOs and feel that the Board is the only one worthy of their attention. If they are going to ignore all invitations to work together during the process, they have, in my view no right to complain about not being included. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> I think the GAC response here is absurd. As someone who participated in the early stages of new gTLD policy formulation during and shortly after the March 2007 “Principles” I know that the GAC Principles massively impacted the policy formation process. The whole attempt to come up with MAPO, for example, had no support in the GNSO but was seen by major business constituencies and staff as a necessary to appease GAC. Arguments against MAPO made by NCUC members were ignored by staff because they thought they had their marching orders from GAC. > > Right, but is the demand for MAPO just offensive power grabbing because that's what states do, or is it also/more defensive, at least on the part of democracies? It's pretty easy to imagine that bureaucrats and their ministries would be keen to avoid situations where vocal domestic constituencies, political higher ups, and the media start jumping up and down about how could you let xyz tld go forward? Moreover, there are international political dimensions given widespread views of ICANN being an out of control US/Northern corporate entity that needs at a minimum intergovernmental oversight. Not saying I agree or favor MAPO, just that there's a mix of motivations, and one suspects it would have been difficult for ICANN to just refuse to consider any sort of mechanism to deal with them. > >> Furthermore, the MAPO regulations were in place almost two years before Suzanne Sene suddenly objected to them at the June Brussels meeting. Same argument applies to the Commerce Departments sudden call for “research” to support the economic need for new gTLDs. In effect, the DoC was asking us to go back to square one. It is obvious that these pressures came from trademark lobbying and nothing else. I would need to research this, but I think Suzanne might even have been at the meeting in MdR where Paul Twomey first introduced MAPO as the solution to the problem of how to deal with GAC issues. > > Undoubtedly that lobbying is a key driver, it's a short cab ride from K St. to NTIA and the hill. But wanting to slow things down seems overdetermined to me. The IPC issue is a problem in itself. They first compromised with the GNSO council in creating the policy and even voted for it (only the NCUC didn't completely vote for the new gTLD program in the GNSO). Then they pushed the IRT and got the STI, but in the end they compromised and agreed on STI. But that was still not enough and they wanted more, so now they 'stomp' out of meetings and lobby any government willing to listen. Every compromise on IP issues is just the platform from which the IP lobby starts its next fight. I believe in compromise in a multistakeholder process, but only when the other party honors the compromise. And I do not feel that has happened on IP issues in the new gTLD process. > >> >> The “big” issue here is what constitutes a “public policy issue” and “public policy advice”? Over time, GAC has gravitated more and more toward an operational role, i.e., giving itself direct control over outcomes, rather than providing advice on general policies that should be adopted. The veto – or even the watered down version of giving “advice” on individual applications through a Communique – illustrates the difference. When you look at individual applications and ask to be able to object to them “for any reason” you are not providing “policy advice”: you are asking to be the one who makes the final decisions about what TLDs can and cannot exist. > > Yup On this I think I disagree. The GAC has by-laws license to question any decision that will be made by the Board. It was our insistence in REC6 that the Board itself had to respond to every controversial string objection. In my view it has nothing to do with what is or isn't a public policy decision (which I think at best has a very fuzzy distinction and depends on your political philosophy - governments see anything they talk about as a public policy issue other wise they would not be talking about it) but rather with the role of Advisory Committees in ICANN. They can advise on anything. And while ALAC can be ignored with impunity, the by-laws give the GAC the right to be heard, responded to and engaged in discussion. I think that this is a clever solution to the veto problem as it relies on existing mechanisms. The first 45 days will allow for anyone to comment on anything. GAC comments will be called Early Warning and will come in the form of advice. There will be no obligation for the board to act on it, as I understand, until the end of the application process, but it will serve to warn anyone who did not know better already that they have a tough hill to climb. Warnings are good things and someone who heeds the warning gets a partial refund instead of dumping a lot of money into a tough cause. Those who want the fight will know they have to get ready. I heard Stuart Lawley of .xxx say he wished he had gotten an early warning. One good thing the Board seems to be requiring in this Advice is that they want to know whether there is a consensus or not and the names of those countries who made and supported the objection. I think we should support the Board in this demand. Note a consensus is something that I think the GAC can only get when they are actually sitting in session with a quorum (whatever that means for the GAC). Does that mean they will have to physically meet during the 45 days period to decide on such advice? Perhaps we need to get ready for that meeting - in the room and in the streets. > >> >> Irrespective of whether you think one or the other side is right about that, clearly there hasn’t been enough good communication and coordination and this disconnect shouldn’t have been allowed to fester. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> As I said, the view that there wasn’t enough communication is a face-saving, comforting way to construct things. But in my opinion it’s false. It would be more accurate to say: as long as the Board doesn’t do exactly what the GAC tells it to do, and let the GAC command it any time it wants, we are doing to be hearing about some kind of “disconnect” Yeah, but I do not believe the Board, at least not this Board is going to capitulate on all the demands. But I do believe they are going to give them due consideration and due diligence as required by the by-laws. > > You think there was enough communication, that GAC and "the community" had fully talked this through and both sides understood each other's concerns and how these could clash etc? I have to say that while I've been on the Council I've seen very little communication with GAC besides the one hour theatre sessions held at ICANN meetings, and basically no internal discussion of the roles and interests of governments. > >> >> Second, each side seemed to feel that the other didn’t understand its constraints and procedures. On the one hand, board members would note that many parties had investors waiting impatiently and were facing financial challenges, that the community had spent years working on the Applicant Guidebook and forging difficult consensuses, and that people would find it difficult to accept this or that advice that ran counter to the AG or introduced additional delays. On the other hand, GAC members would argue that it’s just not possible for them to work in a different and quicker manner since they have various work responsibilities and participating in GAC is just one of these; and that they have to coordinate at each step of the way both internally with their relevant ministries and other actors, and then externally with each other. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> This difference between the two procedures does indeed exist. And it’s important. But what boggles my mind is that no one on the government side seems to remember that this slow, bureaucratic 200-sided multilateral process is PRECISELY WHY WE PUT DNS IN THE HANDS OF ICANN TO BEGIN WITH! We wanted to get DNS out of a situation in which 200 different jurisdictions would try to impose their own law and spend ages trying to work out their differences. > > Ok but the "we" here wasn't most of "them." >> >> Third and relatedly, the two sides were differently enabled to engage in bargaining. The ICANN model involves putting the famous “good people” in board slots and giving them the latitude to make judgments, engage in on-site problem solving via break-out groups and other techniques, adapt their positions to forge compromises, etc. The government folks insisted they can’t work that way, they come with fixed consensus positions and then need to take each new bit from the other side back to their capitals and into the GAC for re-coordination. As such, they couldn’t give definitive statements of agreement to board counterproposals, which left some board members palpably frustrated. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> Same comment as above >> >> Fourth, there were clearly very different expectations about what happens next. The Board had announced in January that it expected to hold an official “bylaws consultation” in SF at which it presumably could announce its final conclusions on what GAC advice it was or wasn’t accepting with an eye to launching the round thereafter. Indeed, some members argued that this session meant that they were already in a bylaws consultation. Key GAC members said they regarded all this as premature and a bit offensive, i.e. as an effort to push toward closure and a launch without fully hearing the GAC out and taking its views on board. Accordingly, they announced they didn’t want SF to be labeled a formal bylaws consultation. This issue led to a lot of heated exchanges on the last morning, so much so that various speakers felt moved to say please let’s pull back from the brink and not end in acrimony, etc. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> Again, this to my mind constitutes a clear abuse of process by the GAC. The GAC has no defined process to follow and can just keep all of us hanging. Let’s not be naïve about the possibilities for strategic misuse of this latitude. > > Sure that' possible. But for the board to announce a timetable it must have known GAC would say it can't meet was also a strategic choice. The push back is no surprise. Actually I bet the Board thinks it was sandbagged. >> >> Maybe as a side note I should say that Avri and I had a long lunch talk with the lead USG person and talked about this in some detail. She insisted that the US doc was being misread out of context, in that is was geared toward internal GAC discussions and what their position should be, rather than some sort of new externally-oriented pronouncement that changes GAC’s bylaws role from advise to command. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> You’ve been played. I tend to believe what people say to me until they have given me a reason to no longer do so. These people have not given me a reason to disbelieve them. > > Give us a little credit. I was just saying what she argued, that not Avri and I bought it. > >> As I’ve said in another context, the DoC is making beeping noises as it backs its way out of an uncomfortable position. There was nothing “misread” or misinterpreted about the USG’s position; there was, however, something deeply embarrassing about it when exposed to the light, and when we made sufficient noise they were forced to back off. I know that Fiona is very good at such retroactive justifications, but I am not buying it. Consider the following facts: >> - That document was circulated US Commerce Dept itself to “selected” people, one of whom was so shocked by it they sent it to me. Obviosuly they are not interested in the US public’s viewpoint, only certain people they think predisposed to agree with them. >> - When they were first challenged publicly on it and approached by reporters, they did NOT say anything about it being geared toward internal discussions – they defended the position therein. This is documented. >> - Even if it was only for internal discussion, it was clearly marked as the “USG position for the GAC scorecard.” In other words, it was the position that the USG was taking. If they modified it because of our political pressure, what would they have done if we had not generated that pressure? The point I made in 'that other context' was that this was still an internal document that it was not yet a proposal to the GAC. As I also said in that other context was that, in retrospect and knowing what i know now, I think we handled it incorrectly. I am glad it was stopped, but it think at this point that it could have been handled better. Spilt milk and all that. >> >> That is, “If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application,” meant that the GAC’s advise would be to reject, not that the Board would be bound to reject. At the same time, there was a bit of a waffle here, since she also felt it’d be exceptionally ill-advised to go forward over GAC objections, and Larry Stickling’s much quoted Flatirons speech in February stated that the Board “would have little choice but to reject the application.” >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> This is they key! In other words, they really DO want the GAC to have a veto. And note that there is no “policy” here – no general set of rules or guidelines that tells us what is allowed and what is not, there is no reliance on international law, there is just “for any reason.” So Fiona’s whining about being misunderstood is B.S. Everyone who gives advice wants it listened to. But the GAC letter also acknowledges that the Board has no obligation to do what the advice says, only that they need to give it full and proper consideration. That is what I believe is the key in the process. > > You don't see any difference between saying "the GAC's position would be that it should be vetoed, and we think it'd be politically unwise to proceed over that objection," vs. "ICANN is formally obliged to agree"? I agree with you that it was a horrid proposal and that they hoped the board would feel pressured to oblige, but it didn't entail a bylaws change. >> >> The larger point she really emphasized was, as suspected, about ICANN’s preservation in the face of calls in the UN for intergovernmentalism. As we know, Brazil, India, South Africa and China have called for a new intergovernmental body with global Internet public policy responsibilities, and there’s fear that this and other proposals could morph into pressures for oversight or control of ICANN. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> Oh, this takes the cake! The old “UN will take over the Internet” bogeyman. I know you are reporting on what Fiona said, and doing it well, but let’s at least make some common-sensical emendations. Would someone please explain to me why we should want to prevent the UN or any other intergovernmental institution to “take over” ICANN by giving all-encompassing power over it to an…intergovernmental advisory council. At least the UN agencies have treaties and laws and the treaties have to be ratified by national legislatures and follow due process. If we have to choose between GAC and an IGO, I’ll go with a duly constituted, treaty-based IGO. > > Really? Wouldn't that have a greater likelihood of institutionalizing all the kinds of dynamics you despise than say an improved, more serious, rule bound GAC? > >> >> The USG appears to be getting seriously worried that if more governments lock into a view that they cannot get their way with ICANN on matters they consider to be fundamental national interests, and/or that ICANN’s is irredeemably accountable to the broader international community, they’ll become more receptive to considering intergovernmental alternatives. One can debate whether that concern justifies the kinds of language used in the US input doc, and indeed we should at the NCUC event in San Francisco. But I do think they’re getting worried, as Stickling’s speech underscores. >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> The ONLY threat of an Intergovernmental takeover comes from the GAC, and from nowhere else. ITU has been repeatedly rebuffed, and the last Plenipot actually recognized ICANN for the first time; WSIS failed when ICANN was much weaker and more controversial and less attuned to international concerns. > > ITU may not be the only game in town, and who knows what the intergovernmental dialogue will look like if the launching of potentially hundreds of new gTLDs leads to backlashes etc. I agree with you at present, but this is a fluid and unpredictable environment, so it's not necessarily a strict either/or, either the US is just using "the other" or it has real concerns about the known unknowns and believes ICANN leadership is ignoring this at its peril. I think the dynamics of the ICANN oversight are far more complex that this issue indicates, but I was concerned at how often governments resorted to the refrain of the type "If ICANN doesn't do the right thing, I am going to take my marbles and ..." But, I am not too concerned about government taking responsibility for the DNS, the one and one way to translate LDS and IDN names into numerical names (aka IP 'addresses) away, though I am concerned about the larger IG context. I, for one, still believe that the ICANN experiment has to succeed ad that success means finding an accommodation with the GAC (yes without them dictating what happens at the table). And that requires a careful balancing act by the Board and especially by Peter. I think they are doing well and we should find ways to support them and give them the arguments they need where we can. One issue that was not mentioned in your report is the absurd untruth that the GAC is using as the basis of its argument - that countries blocking a TLD constitutes a threat to the stability and security of the DNS (As if the Arab states had brought down the Internet by blocking Israel's .il). I.e We must prevent those uncomfortable TLDs from getting into the root because for individual countries to block them would be a technical threat to the Internet. This is their belated response to the 'keep the core neutral' idea. And is false and needs to be debunked at every possible level. The point behind this argument, as close as I can tell, is that if you let a 'bad word' into the root, lets say .right2chose and then countries block it, you will see two possible effects. 1. people in the country might protest this curtailment of the freedoms 2. they might find a way to work around it, leading, horror of horrors, to an alternate root. The argument explains that if you just turn them down and they don't get into the root, they will go away with tails tucked and lick their financial wounds. But if they, especially if there are a lot of them, get into the one-true-root and still can't reach the world, then they will react and form alternate roots that work around their blockage, and that these might actually take root. And since it is a matter of faith that alternate roots means the destruction of the Internet as we know it, it is this, that is a stability and security threat to the Internet. QED I think that this bit of sophism is not only cynical, I think it is absurd. And it is something I am personally committed to fighting against. Perhaps it is the philosopher in me, but I feel that if we can undercut this basic premise of their argument and once again make the arguments that were made in the 'keep the core neutral' campaign we will have gone some ways to undercutting the GAC argument against the TLDs that provoke their sovereign sensitivities. That is, if you don't like .right2chose in your country, then block it! a. From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Tue Mar 8 11:40:20 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:40:20 +0100 Subject: SF NCUC panel Message-ID: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Hello For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. Best Bill Sent from my iPhone From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 8 11:52:51 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:52:51 -0300 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D760A83.6020506@cafonso.ca> Music to my ears! :) --c.a. On 03/08/2011 07:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > From gpaque at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 8 14:28:03 2011 From: gpaque at GMAIL.COM (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:58:03 -0430 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D762EE3.8030709@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 8 17:11:40 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:11:40 -0800 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4A16F485-F504-4847-89E7-107750B8932E@ipjustice.org> Nice work, Bill! Best, Robin On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 8 17:15:04 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:15:04 +0300 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4E1FD571-212D-4479-B32B-8D4D284D940B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Bravo, Bill, Bravo! Katim will make a great panelist. Muchas Gracias, Alex On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:40 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Tue Mar 8 17:20:57 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:20:57 +0000 Subject: SF NCUC panel In-Reply-To: <4A16F485-F504-4847-89E7-107750B8932E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Excellent Bill. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Τρίτη, 8 Μαρτίου 2011 4:12 μμ To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: SF NCUC panel Nice work, Bill! Best, Robin On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > For those who are interested in this, Katim of the ICANN board has agreed to join the panel on Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance, which will now have 2 African speakers. > > Best > Bill > > Sent from my iPhone > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 8 19:56:27 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:56:27 -0500 Subject: Webcast/Remote Participation on 11 March Message-ID: http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=484116 No mention of emote participation/webcast. What's up with that? j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 8 20:40:56 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:40:56 -0800 Subject: Webcast/Remote Participation on 11 March In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <91CA221F-5EA3-4EC4-91FD-C68C0254D96E@ipjustice.org> Hi Joly, At the end of the page it says, "Online remote participation will be available and the event will be webcast and archived online." To clarify: We are working with ICANN on the Adobe Connect system for the remote participation. The link will be posted to this page (and the NCUC website, and this list). Stay tuned for more details. Thanks, Robin On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=484116 > > No mention of emote participation/webcast. What's up with that? > > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 8 21:45:56 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:45:56 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Message-ID: <8C7FD9AC-3A8C-4C72-890E-36B3358DE53F@ltu.se> Hi, sorry this reminder is coming so late (i first sent out the memo on 25 Feb) - too many things going on at the same time. though I do not know at what time we will have our audience with the Board, we need to have given them 3 topics we are interested in their view on. > AGENDAS: > > · Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee will be asked to submit three topics/issues on which they would like the Board’s views (min. of 7 days before meeting) > > · Board will submit to the Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee three topics/issues on which they would like the SO/AC’s views (min. of 7 days before meeting) suggestions? As today is Tuesday, i should try to get something out later today or tomorrow at the latest. a. From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 8 22:15:30 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 21:15:30 +0000 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <8C7FD9AC-3A8C-4C72-890E-36B3358DE53F@ltu.se> Message-ID: Hi Avri, I'm not up to speed enough to know which topics are the best use of our time with the Board, so just by way of suggestion; 1 GAC role & new gTLDs 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. All the best, Maria On 8 March 2011 20:45, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > sorry this reminder is coming so late (i first sent out the memo on 25 Feb) > - too many things going on at the same time. > > though I do not know at what time we will have our audience with the Board, > we need to have given them 3 topics we are interested in their view on. > > > AGENDAS: > > > > · Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee will be asked to submit > three topics/issues on which they would like the Board’s views (min. of 7 > days before meeting) > > > > · Board will submit to the Supporting Organization/Advisory > Committee three topics/issues on which they would like the SO/AC’s views > (min. of 7 days before meeting) > > > suggestions? > > As today is Tuesday, i should try to get something out later today or > tomorrow at the latest. > > a. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 8 22:14:32 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:14:32 -0500 Subject: Webcast/Remote Participation on 11 March In-Reply-To: <91CA221F-5EA3-4EC4-91FD-C68C0254D96E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I'm sorry I'm going blind. That's great. I'll post it to the ISOC-NY site and do an email to our announce list. We now have three extra-curricular events - the NCUC IPC on Fri, the NARALO Showcase on Mon, and the Town Hall on Tuesday. I'm working out with Beau to do an impromptu webcast of the Town Hall - apparently all the CBSi video techs will be deserting to SxSw that week. ICANN have also promised Adobe Connect for that. j On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Hi Joly, > > At the end of the page it says, "Online remote participation will be > available and the event will be webcast and archived online." > > To clarify: We are working with ICANN on the Adobe Connect system for the > remote participation. The link will be posted to this page (and the NCUC > website, and this list). Stay tuned for more details. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=484116 > > No mention of emote participation/webcast. What's up with that? > > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 8 22:53:22 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:53:22 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Tue Mar 8 23:19:34 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:19:34 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D7665260200005B00069771@mail.law.unh.edu> Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP Wed Mar 9 09:09:48 2011 From: ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:09:48 +0900 Subject: ICANN Responds to GAC In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917C66@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Interesting comment on the Brussels Board/GAC meeting and relationship between the two entities Nice cartoon, not entirely fair, but nice. Adam From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Wed Mar 9 10:48:42 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:48:42 +0000 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <4D7665260200005B00069771@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: I also agree with these recommendations for our meeting with the Board. On the first issue, I am not sure whether we need to go into fleshing out particular issues from the GAC scorecard, but of course that will depend on how much time we have with the Board and how much time we want to dedicate on this topic. I like Mary's idea of discussing this more generally; we can perhaps inquire how the Board perceives the role of the SGs in this interaction between the Board and the GAC. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Sent: Τρίτη, 8 Μαρτίου 2011 10:20 μμ To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Wed Mar 9 15:00:18 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:00:18 +0100 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <4D7665260200005B00069771@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <6CD1D735-C0E4-419D-831E-D83F3A351EFA@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Like KK & AD I'm interested in the GAC discussion, but there could be some redundancy with the Council's meeting. Can we identify some distinctive points and spin? As a general matter the CWG thing is a bit of a red herring that other SGs have thrown out, control freakery. Can we ask the board if it'd consider a simple short declarative statement that it knows how to read a CWG report and is not confused and move on? In any event, I personally would be very interested to hear how they read both the substance and process of the JAS group and what they're thinking viable supports might be. Were that to bridge into a broader discussion of developing country participation, that'd be fine too. Agree too best to leave the charter alone at this point, although any updating from SIC would be nice. Cheers, Bill On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: > > (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. > > (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. > > On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: Avri Doria > To: > Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM > Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion > Hi Maria, > > Thanks for the suggestions: > > > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs > > I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. > > > On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > > > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. > > On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. > > Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. > > The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: > > A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status > B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. > > This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. > > The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. > > But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. > > I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: > > - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. > - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. > > The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. > > So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. > > a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Wed Mar 9 16:23:24 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:23:24 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <6CD1D735-C0E4-419D-831E-D83F3A351EFA@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4D77551C0200005B00069889@mail.law.unh.edu> Great points, Bill - for the GAC discussion, perhaps we can focus on the Rec 6 and community objections issues? I also think your proposal for handling the CWG discussion - and to relate it to JAS and the broader question of developing country participation - is a good one, especially in light of the NCUC event on Friday at which a few Board members will be present and speaking. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: William Drake To: Date: 3/9/2011 9:05 AM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Like KK & AD I'm interested in the GAC discussion, but there could be some redundancy with the Council's meeting. Can we identify some distinctive points and spin? As a general matter the CWG thing is a bit of a red herring that other SGs have thrown out, control freakery. Can we ask the board if it'd consider a simple short declarative statement that it knows how to read a CWG report and is not confused and move on? In any event, I personally would be very interested to hear how they read both the substance and process of the JAS group and what they're thinking viable supports might be. Were that to bridge into a broader discussion of developing country participation, that'd be fine too. Agree too best to leave the charter alone at this point, although any updating from SIC would be nice. Cheers, Bill On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting: (1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations. (2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts. On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 3/8/2011 4:57 PM Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion Hi Maria, Thanks for the suggestions: > 1 GAC role & new gTLDs I think asking a question on this is a good idea. We might want to put more meat on it. On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote: > 2 Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter. On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it. It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee. Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any. The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where: A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role. This constituency process was written up and put out for community review .. the review ended on 4 March. The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter. But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting. I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF. I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it. My supposition has been twofold: - the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth. - that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility. The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them. So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be. a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 17:25:50 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:25:50 -0500 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. Message-ID: Hi, I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust > Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST > To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG > Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. > > 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM > > Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, > > We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. > > We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. > > Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 > > To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel > > For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: > http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm > > Most Sincerely, > > Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. > http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fostering Certificate for Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 206424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Wed Mar 9 17:33:07 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:33:07 -0800 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5F773216-2771-414D-AF16-2168C0D8580F@ipjustice.org> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) Best, Robin On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. > > I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >> >> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >> >> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >> >> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >> >> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >> >> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >> >> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >> >> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >> >> Most Sincerely, >> >> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >> >> > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 9 18:23:41 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:23:41 -0300 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <5F773216-2771-414D-AF16-2168C0D8580F@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4D77B79D.3040402@cafonso.ca> None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! :) --c.a. On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. > > It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) > > Best, > Robin > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. >> >> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. >> >> a. >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>> >>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>> >>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>> >>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >>> >>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >>> >>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>> >>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>> >>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>> >>> Most Sincerely, >>> >>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 19:04:11 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:04:11 -0500 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <4D77B79D.3040402@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <13D9FF7C-F35B-448F-A00B-A3C83A8C9B4F@ltu.se> Well actually the argument has been between none and pantheism. a. On 9 Mar 2011, at 12:23, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! > > :) > > --c.a. > > On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. >> >> It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. >>> >>> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>>> >>>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>>> >>>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>>> >>>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >>>> >>>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >>>> >>>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>>> >>>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>>> >>>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>>> >>>> Most Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >> From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 19:12:52 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:12:52 -0500 Subject: Maybe still Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <13D9FF7C-F35B-448F-A00B-A3C83A8C9B4F@ltu.se> Message-ID: <7C4C0928-A12B-455D-A64E-D71A2DA10EC5@ltu.se> Wait, what is that? or was it between the belief in the one true root or the possibility of many consistent roots. how's that for getting back on topic? a. On 9 Mar 2011, at 13:04, Avri Doria wrote: > Well actually the argument has been between none and pantheism. > > a. > On 9 Mar 2011, at 12:23, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! >> >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. >>> >>> It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be educated, etc. ;-) >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. >>>> >>>> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in the name of the NCSG. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>>>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>>>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>>>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>>>> >>>>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>>>> >>>>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and we are very proud of that. >>>>> >>>>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close contact with the life of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>>>> >>>>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>>>> >>>>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click the link below: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>>>> >>>>> Most Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> > From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Wed Mar 9 19:24:02 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:24:02 -0800 Subject: Request for Assistance - NCUC-ICANN Pre-Meeting Event Panel In-Reply-To: <450EE0FF7413444E8CFEE87F4452034403A823E4@MAIL01.umic.pt> Message-ID: <7F44E454-6344-4409-8282-A49DE16C0113@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Ana On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ana Neves wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Happy to know that you outreached Katim, who will definitely enrich the Panel. I suggested Alice and Jayantha to Tracy but unfortunately they could not make it. Tracy’s idea to propose me come up as I am one of the GAC leads, along with Tracy, Alice and Jayantha, on GAC scoreboard on the opportunities for stakeholders from developing countries on gTLDs but it is great that at the end of the day it was possible to find someone available from a developing country. Internet should be one of the best tools to overcome the gap and the division between countries and I am fully confident that Internet Governance as a whole will be able to serve its best purpose: the world-wide economic and social development in an inclusive way. I'm well aware of your support for developing country stakeholders on new gTLDs and other IG issues and just wish we had more room on the panel and more time. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to seeing you in SF; please do come by the NCUC event if you can. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 9 19:38:03 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:38:03 +0300 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: <13D9FF7C-F35B-448F-A00B-A3C83A8C9B4F@ltu.se> Message-ID: Reading this very kind deed at Jomo Kenyatta airport-waiting to board plane. Please link me up with the caretakers?thxs. On 3/9/11, Avri Doria wrote: > Well actually the argument has been between none and pantheism. > > a. > On 9 Mar 2011, at 12:23, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> None, of course! Just a code of ethics will do! >> >> :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 03/09/2011 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> Thanks, Avri! Turkwel, the NCSG baby elephant. >>> >>> It should be noted however, that Avri and I remain in disagreement about >>> what religion in which to raise this elephant and where it will be >>> educated, etc. ;-) >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I never got around to informing the group and never forwarded on any of >>>> the month messages I get from the wildlife trust, but while in Kenya >>>> last year, Robin and I, with the assistance of an unnamed Board member, >>>> decided to adopt one of the baby elephants at the David Sheldrick >>>> Wildlife Trust. >>>> >>>> I just renewed that support, so figured this was as good a time as any >>>> to let the NCSG know that there is a baby elephant that is supported in >>>> the name of the NCSG. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust >>>>> >>>>> Date: 9 March 2011 11:12:51 EST >>>>> To: Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG >>>>> Subject: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> 3/9/2011 11:12:51 AM >>>>> >>>>> Dear Avri Doria & Robin Gross & NCSG, >>>>> >>>>> We are deeply grateful to you for renewing the fostering of the >>>>> Orphan(s) Turkwel. elephants are long lived animals, and those >>>>> foster-parents that have the staying power to continue their fostering >>>>> commitment truly do help ensure the gift of life for a needy orphan of >>>>> misfortune, making amends in a small way for the suffering inflicted on >>>>> the Animal Kingdom by our species. As it is, with the help of many >>>>> caring people such as you, our Orphan Unit can now be called a herd and >>>>> we are very proud of that. >>>>> >>>>> We hope you will continue to visit our website regularly to keep >>>>> abreast with not only our work but your fostered elephant. As a foster >>>>> parent we will be sending you monthly updates with a link to The >>>>> Keeper's Diary, this way you will be able to continue to keep in close >>>>> contact with the life of Turkwel. >>>>> >>>>> Please click on the following link to view Turkwel's Orphan Profile: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=221 >>>>> >>>>> To view the latest entries in the Keeper's Diary follow this link: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/keepers_diary.asp?o=Turkwel >>>>> >>>>> For more information on Understanding The Orphans' Project please click >>>>> the link below: >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/raiseorphan.htm >>>>> >>>>> Most Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick D.B.E. >>>>> http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> IP JUSTICE >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org >>> > From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 9 20:55:24 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:55:24 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <4D77551C0200005B00069889@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <021494CE-921F-4578-8299-2F569CEE1A9B@ltu.se> Hi, I tried to synthesize what was said and came up with the following (ok, I added some of my own content too). I have sent them to Diane with an apology for being a day late. Thanks to those who commented. 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. a. From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 9 21:37:24 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <021494CE-921F-4578-8299-2F569CEE1A9B@ltu.se> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144097994F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Perfect! > -----Original Message----- > > I tried to synthesize what was said and came up with the following (ok, I > added some of my own content too). I have sent them to Diane with an > apology for being a day late. Thanks to those who commented. > > 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in > relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community > comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of > special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. > > 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the > substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in > particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be > and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. > > 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting > on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process > recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to > understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the > New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. > > a. From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 9 22:38:31 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:38:31 -0500 Subject: topics for Board/NCSG discussion In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144097994F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D77F357.9060406@gmail.com> Agreed. All good points and angles. On 09/03/2011 3:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Perfect! > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I tried to synthesize what was said and came up with the following (ok, I >> added some of my own content too). I have sent them to Diane with an >> apology for being a day late. Thanks to those who commented. >> >> 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in >> relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community >> comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of >> special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. >> >> 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the >> substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in >> particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be >> and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. >> >> 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting >> on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process >> recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to >> understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the >> New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. >> >> a. From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Wed Mar 9 22:34:45 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:34:45 -0800 Subject: NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF? Message-ID: <64307B9E-8D77-4A12-A41F-0A3B978C8EE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I'd discussed with ALAC folk the possibility of organizing something social together as we did in Cartagena, Seoul, etc. They took the initiative, picked a resto, and want to know if any NC members would like to join. Unfortunately, some of us have undoubtedly already made plans for Thursday, but maybe things can get reorganized if there's critical mass. So if the below sounds interesting, please let me or Evan know. Thanks, Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: Evan Leibovitch > Date: March 8, 2011 12:10:10 AM PST > To: NARALO Discussion List , Avri Doria , Robin Gross , William Drake , Rafik Dammak , Konstantinos Komaitis , Kathy Kleiman , Debra Hughes > Subject: NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF > > If you are planning to attend ICANN #40 in San Francisco next week... > > Annalisa Roger and I are trying to assemble a group to do dinner Thursday nigtht (Mar 17) at a very unusual restaurant. > (Purely social, if you want to talk shop that's your own business...) > She has negotiated a fixed price menu @ $40. Please let me know if you're interested; we have to nail down numbers by Monday. > If you know others who might be interested but may not be receiving this mail, free free to pass it along. > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From patrick.reilly at IPSOCIETY.NET Thu Mar 10 00:57:08 2011 From: patrick.reilly at IPSOCIETY.NET (Patrick Reilly) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:57:08 -0800 Subject: NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF? In-Reply-To: <64307B9E-8D77-4A12-A41F-0A3B978C8EE0@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hola Compadres y Comadres: If anyone is in town (SF) already, how about a meet up for a drink tonight (WED) @9 p.m.? --- Pat On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Hi > > I'd discussed with ALAC folk the possibility of organizing something social > together as we did in Cartagena, Seoul, etc. They took the initiative, > picked a resto, and want to know if any NC members would like to join. > Unfortunately, some of us have undoubtedly already made plans for Thursday, > but maybe things can get reorganized if there's critical mass. > > So if the below sounds interesting, please let me or Evan know. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Evan Leibovitch > *Date: *March 8, 2011 12:10:10 AM PST > *To: *NARALO Discussion List , Avri > Doria , Robin Gross , William Drake < > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, Rafik Dammak , > Konstantinos Komaitis , Kathy Kleiman < > kkleiman at pir.org>, Debra Hughes > *Subject: **NCSG/ALAC dinner Thursday night in SF* > > If you are planning to attend ICANN #40 in San Francisco next week... > > Annalisa Roger and I are trying to assemble a group to do dinner Thursday > nigtht (Mar 17) at a very unusual restaurant. > (Purely social, if you want to talk shop that's your own business...) > She has negotiated a fixed price menu @ $40. Please let me know if you're > interested; we have to nail down numbers by Monday. > If you know others who might be interested but may not be receiving this > mail, free free to pass it along. > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Thu Mar 10 22:37:29 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:37:29 -0800 Subject: "townhall meeting" on Tuesday 15 March in SF Message-ID: <0E06B369-E830-4663-B386-E59C8FECCB5B@ipjustice.org> http://thepublicvoice.org/townhall2011/ Emerging Issues for the Online Community Tuesday, 15 March 2011 6:00 PM - 6:30 PM (Reception); 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM (Panel) CBS Interactive Studios 235 2nd Street San Francisco, California (Map) Held in conjunction with the ICANN 40 Silicon Valley Meeting Sponsors ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee Non-Commercial Users Constituency North American Regional At-Large Organization The Public Voice Coalition About the Conference Topics to be Discussed The role of the Internet in Egypt and Elsewhere Secretary of State Clinton's Internet Freedom Agenda Proposals to Expand the Number of Internet Domains The IPv4 to IPv6 Transition ICANN and the Role of Governments Speakers John Markoff, New York Times (Moderator) Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee Chair Whitfield Diffie*, ICANN Vice President of Information Security & Cryptography Avri Doria, ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Chair Robin Gross, ICANN Non-Commercial Users Constituency Former Chair Declan McCullagh, CNET News Chief Political Correspondent Barbara Van Schewick*, Stanford Law School Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium * Waiting Confirmation. Resources Reuters: Egypt, a Timeline AOL: Mubarak Driven From Egyptian Presidency CNN: Internet Access Returns in Egypt The Economist: Reaching for the Kill Switch Facebook Officials Keep Quiet on Its Role in Revolts New York Times: State Department to Announce Internet Freedom Policy ABC News: Clinton to Promote 'Freedom to Connect' to the Internet U.S. Department of State: Internet Rights and Wrongs (Remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 15 February 2011) Business Week: Clinton to Support Facebook Freedom, Fight Censorship Politico: Clinton Backs U.S. 'Right to Connect' Reuters: Tweet Like An Egyptian - Hillary Clinton Tries it Out National Journal: ICANN's Proposal to Add New Domains Comes Under Fire Wall Street Journal: Web Domains Could Expand Broadly Under New Plan Washington Post: Obama Administration Joins Critics of U.S. Nonprofit Group that Oversees Internet CBS News: Handing Control of the Internet to Governments - Bad Idea CNET News: To Avert Internet Crisis, the IPv6 Scramble Begins eWeek: IPv4 Address Depletion Adds Momentum to IPv6 Transition PC Mag: IPv4 to IPv6 IP Address Transition Becoming Critical Yahoo!: Businesses Need to Prepare for the IPv6 Transition CNET News: IPv6 Reality Starts Dawning on ISPs PC World: Government Role in ICANN Increases Yahoo!: U.S. Proposal Raises Questions about Control of Web Addresses CNET News: U.S. Seeks Veto Power Over New Domains CNET News: No Support for U.S. Domain Name Veto The Atlantic: When the Internet Nearly Fractured and How it Could Happen Again Contact Amie Stepanovich Electronic Privacy Information Center +1 202 483 1140 x120 stepanovich at epic.org Related Events NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance and the Global Public Interest. 11 March 2011, 8:30 AM. Westin St. Francis Hotel, Union Square, San Francisco, California. For More Information: http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html. Publicity AOL News: Who's Your Stalker: Facebook Scam Makes a New Appearance (Beau Brendler) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Fri Mar 11 00:09:40 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:09:40 -0500 Subject: "townhall meeting" on Tuesday 15 March in SF In-Reply-To: <0E06B369-E830-4663-B386-E59C8FECCB5B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I also made a shortcut http://bit.ly/iTownHall and the designated hashtag is #iTownHall ICANN have promised use of an Adobe Connect room (I think) and there plans to webcast via Beau's laptop and http://bit.ly/isoctv j On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > http://thepublicvoice.org/townhall2011/ > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Fri Mar 11 00:37:15 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:37:15 -0500 Subject: "townhall meeting" on Tuesday 15 March in SF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > I also made a shortcut http://bit.ly/iTownHall and the designated hashtag > is #iTownHall Speaking of which, seems no one is currently using the hashtag #ncuc - so we might as well use it tomorrows event. > > ICANN have promised use of an Adobe Connect room (I think) and there plans > to webcast via Beau's laptop and http://bit.ly/isoctv > > j > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> >> http://thepublicvoice.org/townhall2011/ >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 11 00:47:14 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:47:14 -0800 Subject: link to remote participation to NCUC@ICANN: Internet Gov & Global Public Interest Message-ID: <076BB0EA-E2F4-4A9D-B147-386E13660549@ipjustice.org> Here is the link to the Adobe Connect room for tomorrow's mtg. http://icann.adobeconnect.com/sfo40-ncuc Enter as guest. Thanks Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 11 08:13:14 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:13:14 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Alert To Change In Board Program For Stakeholder Group-Constituency Day in San Francisco Message-ID: <4C98FDE1-20C6-4E4F-8E5C-A95C85780D20@ltu.se> Hi, There will not be a meeting with the Board on Tuesday. This may also have an effect on attendance at our meetings as I am sure many people would want to attend the Tuesday sessions. Probably should be discussed on this and other lists. a. Begin forwarded message: > > > Dear Avri: > > I am writing to let you know of recent changes to the schedule for ICANN’s upcoming Silicon Valley-San Francisco meeting, in particular a change to the planned program for Constituency Day on Tuesday, March 15. > > As a further follow up to sessions in Brussels, the Board and the GovernmentalAdvisory Committee have decided to schedule additional time during the SV-SF meeting to continue discussions on the new gTLD program. This session, open to observers, will take place from 9:00 am – 5:00 pm on March 15 in the Grand Ballroom. This is in addition to the already scheduled Board-GAC consultation set for Thursday, March 17. > > As a result, ICANN Board members will not be able to participate in meetings that day with stakeholder/constituency groups. The constituency meetings can still be held. I am just noting that Board members will be not available. Staff members that committed to attending your meeting will try to follow through on that commitment and you should communicate with staff members separately onthat issue. > > We ask your understanding for this extraordinary change to the public meeting schedule. A public announcementdescribing these changes will be posted shortly on the ICANN website but I wished to let you know in advance of that. > > Regards, > > David Olive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Thu Mar 10 10:28:28 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:28:28 +0800 Subject: Offtopic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great to hear. The David Sheldrake trust visit was definitely a highlight of the many wonderful experiences I had in Kenya last year. David From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 11 08:49:41 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:49:41 -0800 Subject: coming back on a topic: Fwd: Thank you for renewing your fostering of Turkwel. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, I have put some of the info on the NCSG wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Turkwel Speaking of NCSG wikipage, the constituencies should get in touch with me to work out how they want to work on their pages. a. On 10 Mar 2011, at 01:28, David Cake wrote: > Great to hear. The David Sheldrake trust visit was definitely a highlight of the many wonderful experiences I had in Kenya last year. > > David From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Fri Mar 11 14:34:41 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:34:41 +0000 Subject: Invitation to NomCom roundtable next week in San Francisco Message-ID: Dear all, The Nominating Committee (on which I'm the current noncommercial appointee) will hold a roundtable meeting with the community next week in San Francisco. The roundtable will be a moderated discussion between NomCom members and the community: ccNSO, GNSO stakeholders, ALAC, Board, ASO etc. Alejandro Pisanty has kindly agreed to act as moderator. The NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, has invited 3 people from the non-commercial group to the session. Are there any volunteers who'll be in SF? It's an open meeting in any case, so there is of course room for more people. The goal is to inform the community about what we on the NomCom have been doing and how we go about our work, and to take comment on that. And to listen to comments/discussion about candidate qualities, about ICANN's needs etc. And then use the closing minutes to seek help with our outreach. Details are: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 2:00pm - 3:30pm ( http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22185) All the best, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Fri Mar 11 18:37:29 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:37:29 -0800 Subject: Invitation to NomCom roundtable next week in San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5539CDD6-DBBD-4006-9FFE-7C688863BCBC@ltu.se> ooops, i was suposed to pass this on. Apologies. What are you guys looking for: - people to talk about the needs for nomcom in its mission this year. - people too talk about nomcom as aninstitution within the ICANN system. a. . On 11 Mar 2011, at 05:34, Maria Farrell wrote: > Dear all, > > The Nominating Committee (on which I'm the current noncommercial appointee) will hold a roundtable meeting with the community next week in San Francisco. The roundtable will be a moderated discussion between NomCom members and the community: ccNSO, GNSO stakeholders, ALAC, Board, ASO etc. Alejandro Pisanty has kindly agreed to act as moderator. > > > > The NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, has invited 3 people from the non-commercial group to the session. Are there any volunteers who'll be in SF? > > It's an open meeting in any case, so there is of course room for more people. > > The goal is to inform the community about what we on the NomCom have been doing and how we go about our work, and to take comment on that. And to listen to comments/discussion about candidate qualities, about ICANN's needs etc. And then use the closing minutes to seek help with our outreach. > > Details are: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 2:00pm - 3:30pm (http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22185) > > All the best, Maria > From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Sat Mar 12 06:37:50 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:37:50 -0500 Subject: Thanks to all for great event today. Message-ID: I was able to tune in for most of today's conference via the Adobe Connect and it was very enjoyable and stimulating. Great to see the faces of many I only know by their emails. Thanks Robin, and all who participated, and especially the video team! j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Sat Mar 12 09:06:49 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:06:49 +0300 Subject: Thanks to all for great event today. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Indeed, it was wonderful to put some faces on email IDs. Many thanks Robin and team for organising this great event. Alex On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > I was able to tune in for most of today's conference via the Adobe Connect > and it was very enjoyable and stimulating. Great to see the faces of many I > only know by their emails. > Thanks Robin, and all who participated, and especially the video team! > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > From kramer at TELECOMLAWFIRM.COM Sat Mar 12 18:14:59 2011 From: kramer at TELECOMLAWFIRM.COM (Jonathan Kramer, Esq.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:14:59 -0800 Subject: Thanks to all for great event today. In-Reply-To: A Message-ID: <080b01cbe0d9$05e219e0$11a64da0$@com> As a newbie/first-timer, I was very impressed by the entire event, as well as by Craig Newmark's self-effacing luncheon speech. Thanks to Robin and everyone else for a extremely informative day. Jonathan ____________________ Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq. Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C. 2001 S. Barrington Ave., Suite 306 Los Angeles, CA 90025-5379 USA Toll Free: +1 (855) CELL SITE Direct Tel: +1 (310) 405-7333 N.Y. Dir. Tel: +1 (718) 395-7500 Main Tel: +1 (310) 312-9900 Google Tel: +1 (714) WIRELESS Fax: +1 (310) 473-5900 www.CellSiteLawyer.com www.TelecomLawFirm.com www.CellularPCS.com Legal Notices: Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521); (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information; and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, immediately notify the sender toll free on (877) 8-KRAMER, delete this message from all computer memory and all electronic storage devices, destroy all printed and copied documents that contain this message, and utterly erase your entire mind. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited, and not very nice, either. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Any tax advice contained in this communication including any attachments hereto is not intended or written to be used-and cannot be used-for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Basically, don't commit tax fraud. The IRS goons will get you if you do...they know where you live. E-SIGN Notice: Unless specifically indicated in the body of this message, none of the identifying marks contained in this electronic message are intended by the writer to be an 'electronic signature' within the meaning of P.L. 106-229, Cal. Civil Code 1633.1 et seq, or any other local, state, federal, tribal, international, or galactic law, statute, code, or rule. The QR-Code contains our contact information; have fun and import it to your mobile device. Ars sine scientia nihil est. -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alex Gakuru Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 12:07 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Thanks to all for great event today. Indeed, it was wonderful to put some faces on email IDs. Many thanks Robin and team for organising this great event. Alex On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > I was able to tune in for most of today's conference via the Adobe Connect > and it was very enjoyable and stimulating. Great to see the faces of many I > only know by their emails. > Thanks Robin, and all who participated, and especially the video team! > j > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > From avri at LTU.SE Sun Mar 13 01:30:45 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:30:45 -0800 Subject: Fwd: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Confluence announcement Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Date: 12 March 2011 16:13:21 PST > To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Confluence announcement > > Dear all: > > If you are interested in Wiki training, you will have 2 opportunities to do so during the ICANN Meeting: > > Training/Familiarity on ICANN's Community Wiki >> Date: Sun 13 Mar 2011 - 09:00 - 10:00 >> Room: Tower Salon B >> http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21991 > > 2. Training/Familiarity on ICANN's Community Wiki >> >> Date: Wed 16 Mar 2011 - 12:00 - 13:00 >> Room: Tower Salon B >> http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22181 > > > Remote participation is available for both. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > From: Glen de Saint Géry > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:47:36 -0800 > To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Confluence announcement > > > Dear All, > > As you might be aware, ICANN is in the process of transitioning all Socialtext Wikis over to Confluence Wiki (by Atlassian). Next up are the GNSO related workspaces (WG wikis, GNSO Council wiki, etc.) We expect this to be a gradual transition with a final completion date of 30 June 2011 at which stage all Socialtext Wikis will have been migrated and will retire. > > What does this mean for you? In due time you will be informed by the responsible ICANN policy staff that your respective workspace has migrated and you can start using the new Confluence wiki. At that stage you will also receive your log-in details which will give you editing rights to your respective Confluence pages. All the informationthat was available on the Socialtext wiki will also be available on the newConfluence site, albeit with a different layout format. > > How can you lean more about Confluence? To learn more about Confluence and the new functionalities offered, please see http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/DOC/Confluence+User%27s+Guide. Attached you will also find an introduction to the basic functions of Confluence. > > Confluence Training Session: For those interested, a training session will be organized at the next ICANN meeting in San Francisco. If you are interested to participate, please inform the GNSO Secretariat at gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org as soon as possible. > > If you already want to have a look at the new ICANN Community Wiki space, please see https://community.icann.org/. Please note that for now you’ll only find the ALAC wikis and access to board resolutions there. To access the existing GNSO wikis at Socialtext, please go to https://st.icann.org/st/dashboard. > > We hope that the transition will be smooth, without any major interruptions, and anticipate that the move to Confluencewill enhance the options for on-line collaboration as a result of the enhanced features offered. > > If you have any questions, please let me know. > > With best regards, > > Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 01:50:37 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:50:37 +0000 Subject: FW: San Francisco NCUC remote participation dial-in details 15 March 2011 In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D3D4490A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Please find the details for remote participation for our constituency day – Tuesday March 15, 2011. Thanks KK On 11/03/2011 20:55, "Glen de Saint Géry" > wrote: Dear Konstantinos, Please find the dial – in and remote participation information for the NCUC meeting on Tuesday, 15 March in at 09:00– 12:30 PST (16:00-19:30 UTC) http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth Audiocast: English Remote Participation - High Bandwidth Audiocast: English Overview If you have to call out to participants, please use the Meeting view interface : To join the event: URL: https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com Conference Number: 6005785 You may log onto Meeting View 20 minutes prior to the start of your conference. For assistance contact your Meeting Manger. The meeting will be transcribed and the transcription available within 48 hours. Please ask the operator to start and stop the recording for the purposes of recording for the transcriptions. Please clearly state names clearly each time someone speaks for transcription purposes. Please do not have more than one person speak at a time for the transcription purposes. Dial-in details and pass code NCUC to be sent to the participants are below. Let me know if there is anything else that you need. Thank you very much and wishing you a very productive meeting. Kind regards Glen During the ICANN meetings, please contact me on my Blackberry gnso at mobileemail.vodafone.fr +33 6 21 79 24 54 ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant pass code: NCUC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Mon Mar 14 02:25:31 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:25:31 -0700 Subject: FW: San Francisco NCUC remote participation dial-in details 15 March 2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: KK, Apparently in honor of ICANN's esteemed COB, we have moved to Pacific Daylight Time as of early this morning. So, no longer PST -- now PDT. ;-) Double-check: is that UTC-based time still operative? Dan At 12:50 AM +0000 3/14/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >Please find the details for remote participation for our constituency day >- Tuesday March 15, 2011. > >Thanks > >KK > >On 11/03/2011 20:55, "Glen de Saint Géry" >> wrote: > > >Dear Konstantinos, > >Please find the dial - in and remote participation information for the >NCUC meeting on Tuesday, 15 March in at 09:00- 12:30 PST (16:00-19:30 >UTC) > >http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 > >Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth >Audiocast: >English >Remote Participation - High Bandwidth >Audiocast: >English >Overview > >If you have to call out to participants, please use the Meeting view >interface : >To join the event: > > > >URL: > >https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com > >Conference Number: > >6005785 > > > > >You may log onto Meeting View 20 minutes prior to the start of your >conference. For assistance contact your Meeting Manger. > > >The meeting will be transcribed and the transcription available within 48 >hours. > >Please ask the operator to start and stop the recording for the purposes >of recording for the transcriptions. > >Please clearly state names clearly each time someone speaks for >transcription purposes. >Please do not have more than one person speak at a time for the >transcription purposes. > >Dial-in details and pass code NCUC to be sent to the participants are below. > >Let me know if there is anything else that you need. > > Thank you very much and wishing you a very productive meeting. > Kind regards > >Glen >During the ICANN meetings, please contact me on my Blackberry >gnso at mobileemail.vodafone.fr >+33 6 21 79 24 54 > >____________________________________________________________________________ >Participant pass code: NCUC > >For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. >____________________________________________________________________________ >Dial in numbers: >Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll >Free Number > >ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >CHILE 1230-020-2863 >CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 >CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 >COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 >CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >INDIA 000-800-852-1268 >INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 >IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 >JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 >LATVIA 8000-3185 >LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 >NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >PANAMA >011-001-800-5072065 >PERU 0800-53713 >PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >POLAND 00-800-1212572 >PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 >SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 >UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 >USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 > >Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a >mobile telephone. >---------------------------- > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 16:58:24 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:58:24 -0700 Subject: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Message-ID: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Hi, With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+Scorecard+March+2011 I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. a. From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 17:28:07 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:28:07 +0000 Subject: San Francisco NCUC remote participation dial-in details 15 March 2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, Apologies for this - I just forward to email the way it was originally sent to me by Glen. The UTC is still operative - europe does not go to daylight savings not until the end of the month. Thanks KK On 14/03/2011 01:25, "Dan Krimm" wrote: >KK, > >Apparently in honor of ICANN's esteemed COB, we have moved to Pacific >Daylight Time as of early this morning. So, no longer PST -- now PDT. >;-) > >Double-check: is that UTC-based time still operative? > >Dan > > > >At 12:50 AM +0000 3/14/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >>Please find the details for remote participation for our constituency day >>- Tuesday March 15, 2011. >> >>Thanks >> >>KK >> >>On 11/03/2011 20:55, "Glen de Saint Géry" >>> wrote: >> >> >>Dear Konstantinos, >> >>Please find the dial - in and remote participation information for the >>NCUC meeting on Tuesday, 15 March in at 09:00- 12:30 PST (16:00-19:30 >>UTC) >> >>http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 >> >>Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth >>Audiocast: >>English >>Remote Participation - High Bandwidth >>Audiocast: >>English >>Overview >> >>If you have to call out to participants, please use the Meeting view >>interface : >>To join the event: >> >> >> >>URL: >> >>https://meetingview.verizonbusiness.com>ss.com?customHeader=emeetings> >> >>Conference Number: >> >>6005785 >> >> >> >> >>You may log onto Meeting View 20 minutes prior to the start of your >>conference. For assistance contact your Meeting Manger. >> >> >>The meeting will be transcribed and the transcription available within 48 >>hours. >> >>Please ask the operator to start and stop the recording for the purposes >>of recording for the transcriptions. >> >>Please clearly state names clearly each time someone speaks for >>transcription purposes. >>Please do not have more than one person speak at a time for the >>transcription purposes. >> >>Dial-in details and pass code NCUC to be sent to the participants are >>below. >> >>Let me know if there is anything else that you need. >> >> Thank you very much and wishing you a very productive meeting. >> Kind regards >> >>Glen >>During the ICANN meetings, please contact me on my Blackberry >>gnso at mobileemail.vodafone.fr >>+33 6 21 79 24 54 >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>___ >>Participant pass code: NCUC >> >>For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>___ >>Dial in numbers: >>Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll >>Free Number >> >>ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >>AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 >>AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >>BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 >>BRAZIL 0800-7610651 >>CHILE 1230-020-2863 >>CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 >>10800-712-1670 >>CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 >>10800-120-1670 >>COLOMBIA >>01800-9-156474 >>CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 >>DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >>ESTONIA 800-011-1093 >>FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >>FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 >>FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 >>FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 >>FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 >>GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 >>GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 >>HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 >>HUNGARY 06-800-12755 >>INDIA >>000-800-852-1268 >>INDONESIA >>001-803-011-3982 >>IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 >>ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 >>ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 >>JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 >>0066-33-132439 >>JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 >>0066-33-132439 >>LATVIA 8000-3185 >>LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 >>MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >>MEXICO >>001-866-376-9696 >>NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 >>NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 >>NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >>PANAMA >>011-001-800-5072065 >>PERU 0800-53713 >>PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >>POLAND >>00-800-1212572 >>PORTUGAL 8008-14052 >>RUSSIA >>8-10-8002-0144011 >>SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 >>SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 >>SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 >>SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 >>00798-14800-7352 >>SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 >>SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >>SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 >>TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 >>THAILAND >>001-800-1206-66056 >>UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 >>UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 >>URUGUAY >>000-413-598-3421 >>USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 >>VENEZUELA >>0800-1-00-3702 >> >>Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a >>mobile telephone. >>---------------------------- >> >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>http://gnso.icann.org From HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG Mon Mar 14 18:20:28 2011 From: HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG (Debra Hughes) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:20:28 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Message-ID: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. >From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I acknowledge the difference in perspectives. Thanks, Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee Cc: NCSG Members List Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Hi, With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S corecard+March+2011 I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. a. From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 14 18:30:45 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:30:45 +0300 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: Dear Avri, KK, Robin, Mary, and all The proposed Consumer Constituency's (draft) charter principally reinforces our parent NCUC/SG policy positions - i.e. neither opposed nor silence. This thinking leads me to state that we (CC) are in support of this position. Kind regards, Alex On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM, wrote: > Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > > Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > > I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but > after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was > submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC > and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve.  I think it is > important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC > colleagues do not support the conclusions and content.  I would ask that > you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members > of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > > From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective > and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its > philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online > (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster > in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > > Thanks, > Debbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM > To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee > Cc: NCSG Members List > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I > intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S > corecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom  yet, but will be working on > that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough > consensus on wording changes, I will make changes.  The views in this > have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements > and elsewhere.  The original ratings were done with the help of > Konstantinos and Robin.  They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > > > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy > From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Mon Mar 14 18:32:14 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:32:14 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <4D7E18DE0200005B00069EC4@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4D7E18DE0200005B00069EC4@mail.law.unh.edu> Hi Debbie Thanks for the feedback! Are there any areas or specific sections that you think NPOC might support? If so we can perhaps indicate which parts are NCSG wide concerns and which others are supported by NCUC, especially since the document uses (I think) language along the lines of strong support rather than consensus. Cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Debra Hughes To: To: Sent: 3/14/2011 10:20:28 AM Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. >From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I acknowledge the difference in perspectives. Thanks, Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee Cc: NCSG Members List Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Hi, With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S corecard+March+2011 I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. a. From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Mon Mar 14 18:37:54 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: <3E54CAD4-AE6E-4E71-B90E-8BB01782F51A@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Debbie, Could you say which bits of language you have particular problems with, and whether there any tweaks possible that would square the circle between NCUC and NPOC perspectives? It would be better if this could be a SG statement if we could get there... Best, Bill On Mar 14, 2011, at 10:20 AM, wrote: > I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. From beaubrendler at EARTHLINK.NET Mon Mar 14 16:28:43 2011 From: beaubrendler at EARTHLINK.NET (Beau Brendler) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:28:43 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Message-ID: <28059370.1300116524223.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Greetings, colleagues... Alex and I are just getting our feet on the ground, having just made some final updates to the candidate consumer constituency charter proposal yesterday. Indeed, we thank you for the rapid response. And I note that Alex has already sent a note indicating candidate consumer constituency support. However, as co-chair of the as-yet-to-be-approved constituency, I have some minor concerns, specifically, items in section 6 and section 11. We will need to confer with the members of our proposed constituency in more detail before we can join in support. If time is of the essence, then, like the NPOC, I would suggest that this be represented as a statement of the NCUC and not the proposed consumer constituency. We need to do our due diligence with our membership before supporting a statement before we are even officially formed. I'm happy to try to convene internal discussion on this here in San Francisco as time permits, but it would have to be after Tuesday. Regards, Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Debra Hughes >Sent: Mar 14, 2011 1:20 PM >To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > >Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > >Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > >I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but >after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was >submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC >and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is >important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC >colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that >you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members >of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > >From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective >and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its >philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online >(underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster >in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the >positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I >acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > >Thanks, >Debbie > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] >Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM >To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee >Cc: NCSG Members List >Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > >Hi, > >With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I >intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > >https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S >corecard+March+2011 > >I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on >that during the meeting. > >Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough >consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this >have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements >and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of >Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > >a. From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 17:49:24 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:49:24 -0700 Subject: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Message-ID: Hi, I have now finished the table. On 14 Mar 2011, at 08:58, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+Scorecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 18:13:56 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:13:56 -0700 Subject: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <6AA43239-9C2E-4CF0-BB39-B2557209EA0B@ltu.se> Message-ID: <3214BB7A-3748-4148-9808-01A6A71B5113@ltu.se> Hi, I have now finished the table. a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 08:58, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+Scorecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 18:30:38 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:30:38 -0700 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB10D@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: <1A70B589-F60D-44F5-B03F-597F42381B14@ltu.se> Hi, I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing) I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position, especially as regards issue 6. thanks a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, wrote: > Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > > Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > > I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but > after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was > submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC > and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is > important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC > colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that > you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members > of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > > From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective > and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its > philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online > (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster > in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > > Thanks, > Debbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM > To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee > Cc: NCSG Members List > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I > intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S > corecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on > that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough > consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this > have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements > and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of > Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy From HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG Mon Mar 14 21:54:58 2011 From: HughesDeb at USA.REDCROSS.ORG (Debra Hughes) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:54:58 -0400 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <1A70B589-F60D-44F5-B03F-597F42381B14@ltu.se> Message-ID: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB115@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Avri, Please indicate that NPOC does not support the comments related to Sections: 1) 4.2, 2) the entirety of 6; and 3) the entirety of Section 11. The following is the NPOC position on Section 6: For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes standardized exams. Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure these tools are made available as best as possible. Specifically we are pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute its missions and important work. Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New gTLD Scorecard. We need these tools, such as the Trademark Clearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse. While we recognize these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible. Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable. We request the Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations as you move forward in your consultations. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:31 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y. Cc: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; alain.berranger at gmail.com; asterling at aamc.org Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs Hi, I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing) I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position, especially as regards issue 6. thanks a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, wrote: > Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, > > Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight deadline. > > > I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but > after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was > submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between NCUC > and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is > important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC > colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask that > you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the members > of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. > > From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective > and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its > philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online > (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the disaster > in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the > positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I > acknowledge the difference in perspectives. > > Thanks, > Debbie > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM > To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee > Cc: NCSG Members List > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs > > Hi, > > With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I > intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S > corecard+March+2011 > > I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working on > that during the meeting. > > Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or rough > consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this > have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in statements > and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of > Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. > > > a. > > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy From avri at LTU.SE Mon Mar 14 22:24:59 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:24:59 -0700 Subject: [ncsg-policy] RE: RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB037FB115@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> Message-ID: Hi, I have added this information to the web page. I will note during the meeting that you have a minority view on these 3 areas and will refer the workshop participants to the webpage. a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 13:54, wrote: > Avri, > Please indicate that NPOC does not support the comments related to > Sections: > > 1) 4.2, > 2) the entirety of 6; and > 3) the entirety of Section 11. > > The following is the NPOC position on Section 6: > > For the members of the proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns > Constituency, DNS abuse poses real problems to our infrastructure and > the communities we represent. For example, charitable organizations > accept donations online and academic organizations offer high-stakes > standardized exams. Intellectual property rights, such as trademark and > copyright, offer our members a tool to combat DNS abuse. > > We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Board and the GAC to ensure > these tools are made available as best as possible. Specifically we are > pleased with the progress made regarding URS and the Trademark > Clearinghouse - important tools, if accompanied with the right policies > and procedures, that can assist our organizations effectively execute > its missions and important work. > > Because of the budget limitations facing our organizations, we will have > to rely heavily on the protections afforded by the Trademark > Clearinghouse and the URS - areas discussed in Section 6 of the GAC New > gTLD Scorecard. We need these tools, such as the Trademark > Clearinghouse to assist with the prevention of DNS abuse (keeping in > mind the limited financial resources that prevent some not for profit > organizations from registering their names), or the URS, to assist in > the prompt and inexpensive resolution of DNS abuse. While we recognize > these tools cannot solve the entirety of the problem, nevertheless, we > need these tools to be as strong as and efficient as possible. > Additionally, we need these tools to be affordable. We request the > Board and the GAC to consider the needs of not-for profit organizations > as you move forward in your consultations. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:31 PM > To: Hughes, Debra Y. > Cc: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; > alain.berranger at gmail.com; asterling at aamc.org > Subject: Re: [ncsg-policy] RE: Draft of statement for workshop on new > gTLDs > > Hi, > > I think calling it an NCSG position depends on whether the NCSG Policy > Committee can reach near consensus on the items in this list as > currently drawn up (or after consensus based editing) > > I am however, ready to include a statement about the NPOC position, > especially as regards issue 6. > > thanks > > a. > > > > On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:20, wrote: > >> Avri, Konstantinos, Robin and Mary, >> >> Thank you so much for working on this draft under such a tight > deadline. >> >> >> I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my NPOC colleagues, but >> after my review this morning, I think it would be best if this was >> submitted as a NCUC statement, or perhaps a joint statement between > NCUC >> and the proposed Consumer Const, if they approve. I think it is >> important for this viewpoint to be shared, even if I and my NPOC >> colleagues do not support the conclusions and content. I would ask > that >> you clearly state the statement does not represent those of the > members >> of the Proposed Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency. >> >> From the perspective of a non-profit organization that needs effective >> and efficient and reasonable means to execute and protect its >> philanthropic, capacity-building and humanitarian activities online >> (underscored by nefarious activity occurring now related to the > disaster >> in Japan and the pacific area) I have serious concerns supporting the >> positions taken related to Section 6, among other areas - although I >> acknowledge the difference in perspectives. >> >> Thanks, >> Debbie >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ltu.se] >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:58 AM >> To: ncsg-policy at n4c.eu Committee >> Cc: NCSG Members List >> Subject: [ncsg-policy] Draft of statement for workshop on new gTLDs >> >> Hi, >> >> With some help and some editing, I have the draft of the statement I >> intend to use, should a statement be what is mandated. >> >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Board-GAC+Workshop+S >> corecard+March+2011 >> >> I have not finished the table at the bottom yet, but will be working > on >> that during the meeting. >> >> Please discuss the wording, and in so far as we have consensus or > rough >> consensus on wording changes, I will make changes. The views in this >> have been generated from previous positions NCSG has taken in > statements >> and elsewhere. The original ratings were done with the help of >> Konstantinos and Robin. They have been reviewed by Mary. >> >> >> a. >> >> >> >> ---- >> Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy > > > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 23:07:16 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:07:16 +0000 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out – please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. Cheers KK 1. Membership 2. NCUC and new NCSG constituencies – collaboration 3. Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors 4. Interest Groups 5. Policy and Operation Issues 6. NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC 7. Board Seat 14 – discussion. From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 14 23:30:55 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:30:55 -0400 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Konstatinos, I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. Many thanks, Maria On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out – please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. > > Cheers > > KK > > > 1. Membership > > 2.       NCUC and new NCSG constituencies – collaboration > > 3.       Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors > > 4.       Interest Groups > > 5.       Policy and Operation Issues > > 6.       NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC > > 7. Board Seat 14 – discussion. > From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Mon Mar 14 23:39:28 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:39:28 +0000 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sure Maria, Is there any specific timeslot you are thinking of? If you are attending the meeting, then we can do it at any time tomorrow. Let me know. KK On 14/03/2011 22:30, "Maria Farrell" wrote: >Hi Konstatinos, > >I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating >committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of >candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. > >Many thanks, Maria > >On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis >wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics >>that I have missed out ­ please bear in mind that we only have the >>morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in >>particular order. >> >> Cheers >> >> KK >> >> >> 1. Membership >> >> 2. NCUC and new NCSG constituencies ­ collaboration >> >> 3. Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors >> >> 4. Interest Groups >> >> 5. Policy and Operation Issues >> >> 6. NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with >>the GAC >> >> 7. Board Seat 14 ­ discussion. >> From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Mon Mar 14 23:42:40 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:42:40 -0700 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can we add an 8. AOB under which short bits can be raised. Inter alia I'd like to mention the proposed revision of council proxy voting too. Thanks BD On Mar 14, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi Konstatinos, > > I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating > committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of > candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. > > Many thanks, Maria > > On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out – please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. >> >> Cheers >> >> KK >> >> >> 1. Membership >> >> 2. NCUC and new NCSG constituencies – collaboration >> >> 3. Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors >> >> 4. Interest Groups >> >> 5. Policy and Operation Issues >> >> 6. NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC >> >> 7. Board Seat 14 – discussion. >> From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 14 23:51:41 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:51:41 -0400 Subject: NCUC agenda for constituency day (March 15, 2011) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sure, happy to be under AOB. I'll be at the whole meeting so not fussed re timings. Tks, m On Monday, 14 March 2011, William Drake wrote: > Can we add an > > 8. AOB > > under which short bits can be raised.  Inter alia I'd like to mention the proposed revision of council proxy voting too. > > Thanks > > BD > > On Mar 14, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > >> Hi Konstatinos, >> >> I'd like a short slot please, to give a quick update on the nominating >> committee at the meeting, and invite input, recommendations of >> candidates and volunteers for the noncom roundtable on Wednesday. >> >> Many thanks, Maria >> >> On Monday, 14 March 2011, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please find the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Please add any topics that I have missed out – please bear in mind that we only have the morning available. Please also note that the agenda items are in particular order. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> KK >>> >>> >>> 1. Membership >>> >>> 2.       NCUC and new NCSG constituencies – collaboration >>> >>> 3.       Issues before the Council and update from NCUC councilors >>> >>> 4.       Interest Groups >>> >>> 5.       Policy and Operation Issues >>> >>> 6.       NCUC preparing for ICANN 41(Singapore) - NCUC/SG meeting with the GAC >>> >>> 7. Board Seat 14 – discussion. >>> > > From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Tue Mar 15 00:41:59 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:41:59 -0700 Subject: Test Message-ID: Please ignore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 15 04:30:22 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:30:22 -0700 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day Message-ID: Hi, Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: 8:45 CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 9:00 NCUC: Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Working Session http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 9:00 NPOC: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22131 --- The NCSG meeting in in the afternoon 14-18 http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22147 Draft Agenda • Updates from Constituencies and Candidate Constituencies • Status on outstanding Stakeholder group activities including status of charter • Issues before the Council, especially those to be voted on during the meeting • Policy Plans for 2011 • SG Fundraising From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 15 04:32:40 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:32:40 -0700 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nomcom in on the agenda at some point. a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 20:30, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: > > > 8:45 CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 > > 9:00 NCUC: Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Working Session http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 > > 9:00 NPOC: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22131 > > --- > > The NCSG meeting in in the afternoon 14-18 http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22147 > > Draft Agenda > > • Updates from Constituencies and Candidate Constituencies > • Status on outstanding Stakeholder group activities including status of charter > • Issues before the Council, especially those to be voted on during the meeting > • Policy Plans for 2011 > • SG Fundraising From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 15 10:23:56 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:23:56 +0300 Subject: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN (March 15, 2011) Message-ID: Dear all, The agenda and other details at: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 You are most welcome to participate anyhow you can. Regards, Alex From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 15 15:00:42 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:00:42 -0700 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day - Updated Agenda w/tentative start times In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E94D917-5189-447C-A36E-5FFE245CC599@ltu.se> a. On 14 Mar 2011, at 20:30, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: 8:45 CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 9:00 NCUC: Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Working Session http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 9:00 NPOC: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22131 --- The NCSG meeting in in the afternoon 14-18 http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22147 Draft Agenda • Updates from Constituencies and Candidate Constituencies (1415) • Status on outstanding Stakeholder group activities including status of charter (1430) • Nomcom (1445) • Issues before the Council, especially those to be voted on during the meeting (1500) • New gTLD scorecard issues (1545) • Policy Plans for 2011 (1630) • SG Fundraising (1700) • AOB (1730) Will someone be monitoring the Board-GAC discussions? Perhaps people can take turns. From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 15 16:16:51 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:16:51 +0300 Subject: Tuesday - Constituency/SG Day - Updated Agenda w/tentative start times In-Reply-To: <5E94D917-5189-447C-A36E-5FFE245CC599@ltu.se> Message-ID: CC session will be in Borgia room which is right opposite the Grand Ball Room on Mezzanine Floor. (climb a few stairs to enter the room) regards, Alex. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just a reminder, the NCUC, NPOC and CC will all be holding sessions Tuesday morning: > > > 8:45  CC: Strengthening Consumer Agenda at ICANN  http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22121 > From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Tue Mar 15 17:30:19 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:30:19 +0000 Subject: remote participation Message-ID: Dear all, Please find details for remote participation. The NCUC meeting has already started: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22133 KK From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 10:24:38 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:24:38 +0300 Subject: Stopping broadband should arrest online piracy - Daniel Castro Message-ID: Congress told that Internet data caps will discourage piracy By Nate Anderson Internet data caps aren't just good at stopping congestion; they can also be useful tools for curtailing piracy. That was one of the points made by Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) think tank in Washington DC. Castro testified (PDF) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee about the problem of “parasite” websites, saying that usage-based billing and monthly data caps were both good ways to discourage piracy, and that the government shouldn't do anything to stand in their way. The government should allow "pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy," he wrote, which comes pretty close to suggesting that heavy data use implies piracy and should be limited. While usage-based billing and data caps are often talked about in terms of their ability to curb congestion, it's rarely suggested that making Internet access more expensive is a positive move for the content industries. But Castro has a whole host of such suggestions, drawn largely verbatim from his 2009 report (PDF) on the subject. Should the US government actually fund antipiracy research? Sure. Should the US government “enlist” Internet providers to block entire websites? Sure. Should copyright holders suggest to the government which sites should go on the blocklist? Sure. Should ad networks and payment processors be forced to cut ties to such sites, even if those sites are legal in the countries where they operate? Sure. Castro's original 2009 paper goes further, suggesting that deep packet inspection (DPI) be routinely deployed by ISPs in order to scan subscriber traffic for potential copyright infringements. Sound like wiretapping? Yes, though Castro has a solution if courts do crack down on the practice: "the law should be changed." After all, "piracy mitigation with DPI deals with a set of issues virtually identical to the largely noncontroversial question of virus detection and mitigation." If you think that some of these approaches to antipiracy enforcement have problems, Castro knows why; he told Congress yesterday that critics of such ideas "assume that piracy is the bedrock of the Internet economy" and don't want to disrupt it, a statement patently absurd on its face. (One target of his criticism, the Center for Democracy & Technology, was also at the hearing. CDT's David Sohn opened by describing his support for reducing online infringement and told how, back in 2005, CDT had actually filed complaints against two websites that charged money for access to "legal" P2P music. Reading Sohn's measured, thoughtful testimony (PDF) is a good reminder of why process matters when it comes to IP enforcement.) Still, several of Castro's ideas made it into last year's COICA Web censorship bill, which will soon return to Congress (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has promised that COICA will pass this year.) Could some of his other ideas—such as asking government to bankroll antipiracy research—make the cut when COICA returns? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/congress-told-that-internet-data-caps-can-discourage-piracy.ars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET Wed Mar 16 17:01:05 2011 From: ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET (Nuno Garcia) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:01:05 +0000 Subject: Stopping broadband should arrest online piracy - Daniel Castro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is almost as saying that the best way to prevent car accidents is to go by train (which of course is true). (or as the best way not to get infected with STDs is not to have sex, or....) I wonder how someone (http://www.itif.org/people/daniel-castro) can intelligently say this without bursting into laughs... If I where him I'd go a step further: "the best way to prevent online piracy is not to go online . let's shut the Internet down". Now this would be coherent behaviour! Abraços, Nuno Garcia On 16 March 2011 09:24, Alex Gakuru wrote: > Congress told that Internet data caps will discourage piracy > > By Nate Anderson > > Internet data caps aren't just good at stopping congestion; they can also be > useful tools for curtailing piracy. > > That was one of the points made by Daniel Castro, an analyst at the > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) think tank in > Washington DC. Castro testified (PDF) yesterday before the House Judiciary > Committee about the problem of “parasite” websites, saying that usage-based > billing and monthly data caps were both good ways to discourage piracy, and > that the government shouldn't do anything to stand in their way. > > The government should allow "pricing structures and usage caps that > discourage online piracy," he wrote, which comes pretty close to suggesting > that heavy data use implies piracy and should be limited. > > While usage-based billing and data caps are often talked about in terms of > their ability to curb congestion, it's rarely suggested that making Internet > access more expensive is a positive move for the content industries. But > Castro has a whole host of such suggestions, drawn largely verbatim from > his 2009 report (PDF) on the subject. > > Should the US government actually fund antipiracy research? Sure. Should the > US government “enlist” Internet providers to block entire websites? Sure. > Should copyright holders suggest to the government which sites should go on > the blocklist? Sure. Should ad networks and payment processors be forced to > cut ties to such sites, even if those sites are legal in the countries where > they operate? Sure. > > Castro's original 2009 paper goes further, suggesting that deep packet > inspection (DPI) be routinely deployed by ISPs in order to scan subscriber > traffic for potential copyright infringements. Sound like wiretapping? Yes, > though Castro has a solution if courts do crack down on the practice: "the > law should be changed." > > After all, "piracy mitigation with DPI deals with a set of issues virtually > identical to the largely noncontroversial question of virus detection and > mitigation." > > If you think that some of these approaches to antipiracy enforcement have > problems, Castro knows why; he told Congress yesterday that critics of such > ideas "assume that piracy is the bedrock of the Internet economy" and don't > want to disrupt it, a statement patently absurd on its face. > > (One target of his criticism, the Center for Democracy & Technology, was > also at the hearing. CDT's David Sohn opened by describing his support for > reducing online infringement and told how, back in 2005, CDT had actually > filed complaints against two websites that charged money for access to > "legal" P2P music. Reading Sohn's measured, thoughtful testimony (PDF) is a > good reminder of why process matters when it comes to IP enforcement.) > > Still, several of Castro's ideas made it into last year's COICA Web > censorship bill, which will soon return to Congress (Sen. Patrick Leahy > (D-VT) has promised that COICA will pass this year.) Could some of his other > ideas—such as asking government to bankroll antipiracy research—make the cut > when COICA returns? > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/congress-told-that-internet-data-caps-can-discourage-piracy.ars From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 17:29:13 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:29:13 -0700 Subject: Assange message Message-ID: The Guardian / *By* *Patrick Kingsley * [image: comments_image] 18 COMMENTS Assange: The Internet Could Create a "Totalitarian Spying Regime" Assange said the web could allow greater government transparency, but also gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. *March 15, 2011* | *Photo Credit: AFP* TAKE ACTION Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget |Start a Petition � The internet is the "greatest spying machine the world has ever seen" and is not a technology that necessarily favours the freedom of speech, the WikiLeaks co-founder, Julian Assange , has claimed in a rare public appearance. Assange acknowledged that the web could allow greater government transparency and better co-operation between activists, but said it gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. "While the internet has in some ways an ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what government is doing, and to let us co-operate with each other to hold repressive governments and repressive corporations to account, it is also the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen," he told students at Cambridge University. Hundreds queued for hours to attend. He continued: "It [the web] is not a technology that favours freedom of speech. It is not a technology that favours human rights. It is not a technology that favours civil life. Rather it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen. Or, on the other hand, taken by us, taken by activists, and taken by all those who want a different trajectory for the technological world, it can be something we all hope for." Assange also suggested that Facebook and Twitter played less of a role in the unrest in the Middle East than has previously been argued by social media commentators and politicians. He said: "Yes [Twitter and Facebook] did play a part, although not nearly as large a part as al-Jazeera. But the guide produced by Egyptian revolutionaries … says on the first page, 'Do not use Facebook and Twitter', and says on the last page, 'Do not use Facebook and Twitter'. "There is a reason for that. There was actually a Facebook revolt in Cairo three or four years ago. It was very small … after it, Facebook was used to round-up all the principal participants. They were then beaten, interrogated and incarcerated." Assange said that cables released by WikiLeaks played a key role in both fomenting unrest in the Middle East and forcing the US government not to back former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Assange said diplomatic cables concerning US attitudes to the former Tunisian regime had given strength to revolutionary forces across the region. "The Tunisian cables showed clearly that if it came down to it, the US, if it came down to a fight between the military on the one hand, and Ben Ali's political regime on the other, the US would probably support the military." He continued: "That is something that must have also caused neighbouring countries to Tunisia some thought: that is that if they militarily intervened, they may not be on the same side as the United States." Assange, who is appealing against his extradition to Sweden on alleged sex charges, said the WikiLeaks releases had also forced the US to drop their tacit support of Mubarak. "As a result of releasing cables about Suleiman [the vice-president of Egypt under Mubarak], the US and Israel's preferred option for regime takeover in Egypt, as a result of releasing cables about Mubarak's approval of Suleiman's torture methods, it was not possible for Joseph Biden to [repeat his earlier claim that Mubarak was not a dictator]. It was not possible for Hillary Clinton to publicly come out and support Mubarak's regime." Responding to a question about Bradley Manning, the US soldier incarcerated for allegedly leaking classified information, Assange said: "We have no idea whether he is one of our sources. All our technology is geared up to make sure we have no idea." -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at FRENCHPARENTS.NET Wed Mar 16 19:44:16 2011 From: info at FRENCHPARENTS.NET (InternationalParents) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:44:16 +0100 Subject: Assange message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you Julian for putting my thoughts in writing and Dee Dee for sending this! ;-) My approach to social networking is one of preserving as much privacy as possible for members, without the disadvantages of anonymity; ie, - no addresses, - no last names, - just real people who are invited to join by other real people. I like our Listserv discussion list for much the same reasons: it's managed by a trusted entity with relative independence from corporate or government interests. Caroline Isautier > ----------------------------------- Frenchparents.net - ( Not active any more) Bilingual online community in San Francisco http://www.frenchparents.net InternationalParents - (Its little brother, growing taller by the day) Social network in 30 cities worldwide Le premier réseau international des familles futées The first international network for smart parents http://www.internationalparents.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Wed Mar 16 20:15:37 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:15:37 +0200 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <000501cbe40e$88e894d0$9ab9be70$@net> Hello Everyone, I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. Thanks. Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 16 20:23:19 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:23:19 -0700 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <000501cbe40e$88e894d0$9ab9be70$@net> Message-ID: <73D23CE9-6750-40AE-B64B-8C505C4B36C2@ltu.se> Hi, Are more of us actually invited? a. On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I’m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 11:42:58 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:42:58 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <1030721007-1300304605-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1168369516-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. Amr ------Original Message------ From: Avri Doria Sender: NCSG-NCUC To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ReplyTo: Avri Doria Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM Hi, Are more of us actually invited? a. On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I’m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil From maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 20:50:34 2011 From: maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:50:34 -0700 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <1030721007-1300304605-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1168369516-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. Maria On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: > From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. > > Amr > ------Original Message------ > From: Avri Doria > Sender: NCSG-NCUC > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > ReplyTo: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM > > Hi, > > Are more of us actually invited? > > a. > > On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I’m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr Elsadr M.D. >> Chief Operating Officer >> Tele-Med International >> http://www.telemedint.net >> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >> > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 11:53:18 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:53:18 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <1098888941-1300305226-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-681403097-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Excellent. Thanks Maria. ------Original Message------ From: Maria Farrell To: Dr. Amr Elsadr Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:50 PM Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. Maria On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: > From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. > > Amr > ------Original Message------ > From: Avri Doria > Sender: NCSG-NCUC > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > ReplyTo: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM > > Hi, > > Are more of us actually invited? > > a. > > On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I’m looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr Elsadr M.D. >> Chief Operating Officer >> Tele-Med International >> http://www.telemedint.net >> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >> > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil From rcrf at AKTION-FSA.DE Wed Mar 16 20:47:38 2011 From: rcrf at AKTION-FSA.DE (Remmert-Fontes Ricardo Cristof) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:47:38 +0100 Subject: Anonymity is a must for a free society In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8113DA.20700@aktion-fsa.de> Hi, although I am on this list for a long time, I haven't been able to get myself into the discussions for several reasons. However, let me introduce myself first shortly. I was one of the guys mainly organizing the protest against data retention in Germany and coordinating the "international action day "Freedom Not Fear" 2007/2008 and after a breakup still working on the topics of privacy and surveillance, but now for a registered org. Actually we have focussed more on the european security architecture and especially on the topics "Fortress Europe" (the para-military hunting for refugees), police-, military- and secret services cooperations and militarization in general (Germany is now the worlds third largest weapons' exporting country *sad*). But back to topic. Assange is right on this point: the "utopia" of total transparency, i.e. of "everybody could theoretically know everything about anyone", which has also been called "Transparent Society" by David Brin, is in reality a dystopia. Why? The answer is simple. While in theory total transparency would mean equality, in practice there will always be a gap between people with more and those with less access to information, may it be due to financial resources, technological ressources or the lack of literacy or education. So, in practice there would always be an avantgarde or "elite", which has advantages over others. And this would be the corporations at first. Additionally, acces providers and gatekeepers for informational management (like Google) will have advanced powers in supervising and maybe controling behaviour of users. But people, who feels supervised or lack of orientation in an information overload, will not be able to develeop an independant point of view. They will not be able to participate at democracy - and no, simple theoretical access to all available information is not enough. It needs training and education to filter information and rate them personally. Plus, the development of a strong, self-aware personality needs a sphere of privacy. You would never allow a livestream from your kids' room go live 24/7 on the web, won't you? People need secure spaces to grow up, to explore and "develop" themselves. And that's maybe the main reason for opposing the technological "utopia" (or "dystopia") of a completely transparent society. So, I feel that the NCUC should be a voice for strong privacy for consumers against the corporations - and yes, even if their supposed motto is "Don't be evil". By the way, I also believe, that corporations should not been granted the same civil rights as people. Corporations shouldn't have a right for privacy - individuals should. Hm, have gotten a bit out of scope here, sorry for that. Viele Grüße/Best regards, Ricardo Cristof Remmert-Fontes - Aktion Freiheit statt Angst e.V. - Mobile: +49-170-2487266 E-Mail: rcrf at aktion-fsa.de -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Assange message From: InternationalParents To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Wed Mar 16 2011 19:44:16 GMT+0100 (CET) > Thank you Julian for putting my thoughts in writing and Dee Dee for > sending this! ;-) > > My approach to social networking is one of preserving as much privacy as > possible for members, > > without the disadvantages of anonymity; > > ie, > > - no addresses, > - no last names, > - just real people who are invited to join by other real people. > > > I like our Listserv discussion list for much the same reasons: > > it's managed by a trusted entity with relative independence from > > corporate or government interests. > > > Caroline Isautier > > >> > > > ----------------------------------- > Frenchparents.net - ( Not active any more) > Bilingual online community in San Francisco > http://www.frenchparents.net > > InternationalParents - (Its little brother, growing taller by the day) > Social network in 30 cities worldwide > Le premier réseau international des familles futées > The first international network for smart parents > http://www.internationalparents.net/ > > > > > -- Aktion Freiheit statt Angst e.V. Rochstrasse 3 D-10178 Berlin Fon: +49-30-69209922-1 Fax: +49-30-69209922-9 E-Mail: kontakt at aktion-fsa.de Web: Facebook: Twitter: --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Ihre Spende ermöglicht unsere Arbeit!* Spendenkonto: Inhaber: Aktion Freiheit statt Angst e.V. Bank: GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG Kontonr.: 1105204100 BLZ: 43060967 Online spenden: --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Ko-Kreis (Vorstand)* Ricardo Cristof Remmert-Fontes | Sophie Behrendt Nannette Roske | Dr. Rainer Hammerschmidt *Registergericht und Nummer* Amtsgericht Charlottenburg | VR 28834 B *Steuernummer* 27/659/52868 --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Kontaktdaten als VCard downloaden* *PGP-/GnuPG-Key* From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Wed Mar 16 22:22:35 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:22:35 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <1098888941-1300305226-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-681403097-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Thanks Amr for organizing this - I will do my best to alos attend, otherwise we will work as we discussed. Again thanks KK On 17/03/2011 10:53, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: >Excellent. Thanks Maria. >------Original Message------ >From: Maria Farrell >To: Dr. Amr Elsadr >Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:50 PM > >Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. > >Maria > >On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. >>The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have >>noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as >>well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would >>love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If >>anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. >> >> Amr >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Avri Doria >> Sender: NCSG-NCUC >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ReplyTo: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> Are more of us actually invited? >> >> a. >> >> On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting >>>tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, >>>and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will >>>definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower >>>Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I¹m looking forward >>>to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr Elsadr M.D. >>> Chief Operating Officer >>> Tele-Med International >>> http://www.telemedint.net >>> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >>> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >>> >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil > > >Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 13:26:59 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:26:59 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <23252280-1300310847-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1445497499-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Thanks Janice. Truly appreciated. If anyone else will be able to attend tomorrow morning's meeting, please say so. The meeting starts at 7:30am and ends at 9:00am, so it shouldn't conflict with the rest of the day's schedule. Amr. ------Original Message------ From: Janice Lange To: Dr. Amr Elsadr To: Avri Doria To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: RE: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 PM Absolutely - it is a small room if you haven't been and I will order more chairs...if you can tell me the number of folks and if you will be having brkfst - as I will need to "up" the normal order......and no, we aren't formal...:) -----Original Message----- From: aelsadr at telemedint.net [mailto:aelsadr at telemedint.net] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:43 AM To: Avri Doria; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Janice Douma Lange Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. Amr ------Original Message------ From: Avri Doria Sender: NCSG-NCUC To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ReplyTo: Avri Doria Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM Hi, Are more of us actually invited? a. On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > Sent using BlackBerry(r) from mobinil Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 17 13:29:03 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:29:03 +0000 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Message-ID: <1939427699-1300310971-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-115193128-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Excellent again. Thanks KK. So far, we have Wendy, Maria, and Konstantinos. ------Original Message------ From: Konstantinos Komaitis To: Dr. Amr Elsadr To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th Sent: Mar 16, 2011 11:22 PM Thanks Amr for organizing this - I will do my best to alos attend, otherwise we will work as we discussed. Again thanks KK On 17/03/2011 10:53, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: >Excellent. Thanks Maria. >------Original Message------ >From: Maria Farrell >To: Dr. Amr Elsadr >Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:50 PM > >Hi Amr, thanks for organizing. I'll be there, too. > >Maria > >On Thursday, 17 March 2011, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. >>The meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have >>noticed that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as >>well, and since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would >>love it if more of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If >>anything, I believe this will be of benefit to the fellows. >> >> Amr >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Avri Doria >> Sender: NCSG-NCUC >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ReplyTo: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> Are more of us actually invited? >> >> a. >> >> On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting >>>tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, >>>and it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will >>>definitely be there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower >>>Salon B. Stop by and get a free breakfast as well. I¹m looking forward >>>to more NCSG involvement in the Fellowship Program. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr Elsadr M.D. >>> Chief Operating Officer >>> Tele-Med International >>> http://www.telemedint.net >>> Tel: +2(023)534-6098 >>> Fax: +2(023)534-6029 >>> >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil > > >Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 16 23:33:43 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:33:43 +0300 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: <23252280-1300310847-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1445497499-@b25.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi, I shall attend. Regards, Alex On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Janice. Truly appreciated. If anyone else will be able to attend > tomorrow morning's meeting, please say so. The meeting starts at 7:30am and > ends at 9:00am, so it shouldn't conflict with the rest of the day's > schedule. > > Amr. > ------Original Message------ > From: Janice Lange > To: Dr. Amr Elsadr > To: Avri Doria > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: RE: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 PM > > Absolutely - it is a small room if you haven't been and I will order more > chairs...if you can tell me the number of folks and if you will be having > brkfst - as I will need to "up" the normal order......and no, we aren't > formal...:) > > -----Original Message----- > From: aelsadr at telemedint.net [mailto:aelsadr at telemedint.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:43 AM > To: Avri Doria; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Janice Douma Lange > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > > From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The > meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed > that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and > since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more > of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this > will be of benefit to the fellows. > > Amr > ------Original Message------ > From: Avri Doria > Sender: NCSG-NCUC > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > ReplyTo: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th > Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM > > Hi, > > Are more of us actually invited? > > a. > > On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting > tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and > it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be > there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by > and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG > involvement in the Fellowship Program. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > > Chief Operating Officer > > Tele-Med International > > http://www.telemedint.net > > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > > > > > Sent using BlackBerry(r) from mobinil > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from mobinil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poomjit at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 17 03:57:33 2011 From: poomjit at GMAIL.COM (Poomjit Sirawongprasert) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:57:33 +0700 Subject: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's a bit impolite to say but please ask them if they can offer more to the people from developing country and strong internet censorship, including Thailand? ภูมิจิต ศิระวงศ์ประเสริฐ (หมวย) Poomjit Sirawongprasert (Moui) Tel. +66-86-335-3900 Fax. +66-2287-2614 Contact Me [image: Twitter] [image: Facebook] [image: LinkedIn] [image: Ning] [image: WordPress] On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > Hi, I shall attend. Regards, Alex > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Thanks Janice. Truly appreciated. If anyone else will be able to attend >> tomorrow morning's meeting, please say so. The meeting starts at 7:30am and >> ends at 9:00am, so it shouldn't conflict with the rest of the day's >> schedule. >> >> Amr. >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Janice Lange >> To: Dr. Amr Elsadr >> To: Avri Doria >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: RE: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 PM >> >> Absolutely - it is a small room if you haven't been and I will order more >> chairs...if you can tell me the number of folks and if you will be having >> brkfst - as I will need to "up" the normal order......and no, we aren't >> formal...:) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: aelsadr at telemedint.net [mailto:aelsadr at telemedint.net] >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:43 AM >> To: Avri Doria; NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Janice Douma Lange >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> >> From my experience with these meetings, it's not really that formal. The >> meetings aren't closed for sure. The room isn't very big, but I have noticed >> that non-fellows sometimes just pop in. I've cced Janice here as well, and >> since this will be the first time NCSG is attending, I would love it if more >> of us are there, especially the NC veterans. If anything, I believe this >> will be of benefit to the fellows. >> >> Amr >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Avri Doria >> Sender: NCSG-NCUC >> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> ReplyTo: Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Fellowship Morning Meeting - March 18th >> Sent: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> Are more of us actually invited? >> >> a. >> >> On 16 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >> > Hello Everyone, >> > >> > I wanted to confirm with all of you that Wendy will be presenting >> tomorrow at the Fellowship morning meeting. She should be on at 8:00am, and >> it would be nice if more of us could attend as well. I will definitely be >> there. We start the meetings at 7:30am everyday in Tower Salon B. Stop by >> and get a free breakfast as well. I'm looking forward to more NCSG >> involvement in the Fellowship Program. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Amr Elsadr M.D. >> > Chief Operating Officer >> > Tele-Med International >> > http://www.telemedint.net >> > Tel: <%2B2%28023%29534-6098>+2(023)534-6098 >> > Fax: <%2B2%28023%29534-6029>+2(023)534-6029 >> > >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry(r) from mobinil >> >> >> Sent using BlackBerry(R) from mobinil >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Thu Mar 17 05:18:53 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:18:53 -0400 Subject: Assange message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917EB3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> It’s not really “the Internet” per se Assange is talking about, but the whole panoply of information processing technology once it becomes wedded to networking. One doesn’t need TCP/IP at all to do a lot of surveillance. And I think visions of total dystopia and domination are often as unrealistic as ones of utopian perfection. The Guardian / By Patrick Kingsley [http://images.alternet.org/images/site/talk_box_world.jpg] 18 COMMENTS Assange: The Internet Could Create a "Totalitarian Spying Regime" Assange said the web could allow greater government transparency, but also gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. March 15, 2011 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 17 08:18:53 2011 From: compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM (Mohab Altlaity) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:18:53 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom Message-ID: <881256.23370.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Hello Everyone; This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from stopping the Internet in their countries .. I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" in some countries against the Internet activists ... Any ideas? Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmamodio at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 17 21:32:40 2011 From: jmamodio at GMAIL.COM (Jorge Amodio) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:32:40 -0500 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <881256.23370.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We still live in a world with boundaries and where non-intervention and self-determination are principles of international law. As activists in a civil society organization, and being involved in the development and promotion of technology, the best approach is to use the tools you have at your hands to procrastinate and voice the benefits to live in an open and democratic society where respect and acceptance are part of the foundation, and adding education and dialog to develop the basis to help elect and support government authorities that represent the will of the people. It is important to strike a reasonable balance on how non governmental organizations can drive part of the movement that counters disparate government actions. My .02 Jorge On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Mohab Altlaity wrote: > Hello Everyone; > This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. > I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. > > I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. > It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from > stopping the Internet in their countries .. > I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" > in some countries against the Internet activists ... > > Any ideas? > > Mohab Mohammad Altlaity > Embedded SW Engineer, > VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. > http://www.valeo.com > > Mobile: 0106938463 > > > From wendy at SELTZER.COM Thu Mar 17 23:05:57 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:05:57 -0400 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions Message-ID: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and months. * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose? * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in advance of new URS procedures. * WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? * Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Fri Mar 18 00:18:22 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:18:22 +0000 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Thanks Wendy - this is really helpful. I think that all of these issues are important for NCUC and I would strongly encourage people to participate. I, for once, would like to express my willingness on participating in the impeding UDRP review process. Kim von Arx is part of the WHOIS team, so I would like to ask him if he could give us an update and I think that a chat with the Registry group would be really helpful. Let's try to see whether there can also be a compromise with the RAA (Mary leading this will be the best source to take the lead on this) and the budget issue. May I also take this opportunity to encourage people to engage in any of these issues. Some people came up to me in SF expressing their interest in being more active. This is a great opportunity. Thanks KK On 17/03/2011 22:05, "Wendy Seltzer" wrote: >As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight >some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and >months. > >* Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA >negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to >that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can >propose? > >* UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on >review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like >that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate >registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its >use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts >to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in >advance of new URS procedures. > >* WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who >have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, >who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined >motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? > >* Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy >support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a >public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO >Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? > >Thanks, >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 >Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >https://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ >http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU Fri Mar 18 02:05:45 2011 From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU (Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:05:45 -0400 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <4D8277A90200005B0006A60B@mail.law.unh.edu> Thanks for a great summary, Wendy - I agree totally with your observations and suggestions. On the RAA: the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) will NOT vote in favor of the deferred motion, which is basically a watered-down version of the motion NCSG (through me) supported and that was defeated (as we knew). The reason we deferred is to provide an opportunity to seek a way forward with them if possible, and give us in the Non-Contracted Parties House some time to reconvene and figure out next steps. I'm happy to stay as the CPH's Favorite Person to Hate but would appreciate some guidance from members as to what they are prepared to live with, knowing as we do that the Registrars will go ahead and negotiate without us anyway if this stalemate continues. On WHOIS: Can we have a volunteer get in touch with the Registries Wendy mentions? On the RAP/UDRP review: the initial team to quickly scope out the issues will be made up of Councilors - do we have a volunteer? A call is likely to take place in April between the team, ICANN Policy staff and probably a few others invited for specific perspective (e.g. to provide data on UDRP proceedings). Our Councilor volunteer(s) for this initial team will be able to suggest those names - depending on what the April chat is intended to do, we can, for example, suggest Konstantinos when the time comes. The idea is that the Issues Report that ICANN staff has to prepare to enable the Council to decide whether or not to proceed with a PDP will be drafted in May, in time for Singapore in June. On the Budget - I think Wendy's suggestion is excellent. I can put together a short statement - the closing date for public comments is 4 April. Also, FYI, the Council Chair and Vice-Chairs may circulate a request to the Council to do something similar. Thanks and cheers to all for a good and productive meeting, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Wendy Seltzer To: Date: 3/17/2011 6:10 PM Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and months. * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose? * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in advance of new URS procedures. * WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? * Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy at SELTZER.COM Fri Mar 18 02:16:25 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:16:25 -0400 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8277A90200005B0006A60B@mail.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4D82B269.3040406@seltzer.com> Thanks Mary, I volunteer for the RAP/UDRP review scoping. --Wendy On 03/17/2011 09:05 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > Thanks for a great summary, Wendy - I agree totally with your observations and suggestions. > > On the RAA: the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) will NOT vote in favor of the deferred motion, which is basically a watered-down version of the motion NCSG (through me) supported and that was defeated (as we knew). The reason we deferred is to provide an opportunity to seek a way forward with them if possible, and give us in the Non-Contracted Parties House some time to reconvene and figure out next steps. I'm happy to stay as the CPH's Favorite Person to Hate but would appreciate some guidance from members as to what they are prepared to live with, knowing as we do that the Registrars will go ahead and negotiate without us anyway if this stalemate continues. > > On WHOIS: Can we have a volunteer get in touch with the Registries Wendy mentions? > > On the RAP/UDRP review: the initial team to quickly scope out the issues will be made up of Councilors - do we have a volunteer? A call is likely to take place in April between the team, ICANN Policy staff and probably a few others invited for specific perspective (e.g. to provide data on UDRP proceedings). Our Councilor volunteer(s) for this initial team will be able to suggest those names - depending on what the April chat is intended to do, we can, for example, suggest Konstantinos when the time comes. The idea is that the Issues Report that ICANN staff has to prepare to enable the Council to decide whether or not to proceed with a PDP will be drafted in May, in time for Singapore in June. > > On the Budget - I think Wendy's suggestion is excellent. I can put together a short statement - the closing date for public comments is 4 April. Also, FYI, the Council Chair and Vice-Chairs may circulate a request to the Council to do something similar. > > Thanks and cheers to all for a good and productive meeting, > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > From: Wendy Seltzer > To: > Date: 3/17/2011 6:10 PM > Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions > As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight > some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and > months. > > * Registrar Accreditation Agreement: We asked for an observer in RAA > negotiations; the Registries and Registrars said they'd never agree to > that, and the motion failed. Is there any useful compromise we can propose? > > * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on > review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like > that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate > registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its > use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts > to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in > advance of new URS procedures. > > * WHOIS Studies. Shall we have a conversation with the registries who > have expressed some concerns about specific studies, (and registrars, > who have opposed them all), to propose amendments before the combined > motion on all the studies comes back next Council meeting? > > * Budget. Council has often found ourselves asking for more policy > support than the policy staff have time to provide. Shall we put a > public comment into the budget process requesting that that GNSO > Council's policy staffing be given higher priority? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Fri Mar 18 03:04:38 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:04:38 +0900 Subject: Items from the GNSO Council discussions In-Reply-To: <4D8285C5.5010904@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <201103180204.p2I24cSX023839@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> > As we wrap up our GNSO Council agenda for the week, I want to highlight > some of the items I think NCUC/SG should watch in the next few weeks and > months. [snip] > * UDRP review. We have been asked to help scope an issues report on > review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure. I think we'd like > that review to assess the balance and protections for legitimate > registrants, e.g. against reverse domain name hijacking, as well as its > use against cybersquatting. We'll be looking for resources and experts > to inform the review, and I'd like to see the review completed in > advance of new URS procedures. [snip] I volunteer to help out on this. Of course the person we really need is Prof Michael Geist. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID Fri Mar 18 03:04:36 2011 From: rusdiah at RAD.NET.ID (Rudi Rusdiah) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:04:36 +0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D82BDB4.6050603@rad.net.id> probably it is a cycle or history repeat ... 11 years ago in Indonesia was first hit by asian economic crisis... then become multidimensional crisis... because of protests and demonstrations on the street and parliament innitiated by university students on the street... resulted the Soeharto cabinet was toppled down... the week after soeharto visited Mubarak in Egypt. internet played also some roles... because during the crisis only thru email dan mailing list we can received underground or uncensored news... we also survived because internet gave us valued informations...so we knew what to do financially... now internet is more populer so it must give a bigger impact... and probably wikileaks is the appetizer to all what is going on in middle east... ? cmiiw... regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel (indonesia) ---- On 03/18/2011 03:32 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > We still live in a world with boundaries and where non-intervention > and self-determination are principles of international law. > > As activists in a civil society organization, and being involved in > the development and promotion of technology, the best approach is to > use the tools you have at your hands to procrastinate and voice the > benefits to live in an open and democratic society where respect and > acceptance are part of the foundation, and adding education and dialog > to develop the basis to help elect and support government authorities > that represent the will of the people. > > It is important to strike a reasonable balance on how non governmental > organizations can drive part of the movement that counters disparate > government actions. > > My .02 > Jorge > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Mohab Altlaity wrote: > >> Hello Everyone; >> This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. >> I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. >> >> I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. >> It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from >> stopping the Internet in their countries .. >> I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" >> in some countries against the Internet activists ... >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Mohab Mohammad Altlaity >> Embedded SW Engineer, >> VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. >> http://www.valeo.com >> >> Mobile: 0106938463 >> >> >> >> > > From nhklein at GMX.NET Fri Mar 18 04:29:30 2011 From: nhklein at GMX.NET (nhklein) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:29:30 +0700 Subject: EU to force social network sites to enhance privacy Message-ID: <4D82D19A.8090906@gmx.net> Interesting comment on default internet privacy protection: Companies "can't think they're exempt just because they have their servers in California... If they're targeting EU citizens they will have to comply with the rules." Norbert Klein ------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/16/eu-social-network-sites-privacy EU to force social network sites to enhance privacy 'Right to be forgotten' would ensure users of Facebook and other sites could completely erase personal data "The European Union is to enshrine a "right to be forgotten online" to ensure... In a speech to the European parliament, the EU justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, warned companies such as Facebook that: "A US-based social network company that has millions of active users in Europe needs to comply with EU rules." [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Fri Mar 18 18:22:42 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:22:42 -0400 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <881256.23370.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917EFB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Welcome Mohab. It is great to see people in Egypt trying to prevent another internet shutdown! Perhaps the best way is through constitutional protections that would establish political speech as a protected sphere, and deny your head of state the right to arbitrarily shut down the Internet or other media of communication. Another important step is to promote liberalization and competition in the telecommunication industry, so that the licensees are not subject to the direct orders of the government, and there is a more diverse environment among suppliers of service. Of course, these steps have to be institutionalized by Egyptians mainly, although much can be learned from other countries' experience. From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mohab Altlaity Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:19 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Internet Freedom Hello Everyone; This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from stopping the Internet in their countries .. I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" in some countries against the Internet activists ... Any ideas? Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 18 21:34:20 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:34:20 -0700 Subject: Some pictures from San Francisco Message-ID: <7688501E-58B1-4DD8-AF52-EE09E9090191@graduateinstitute.ch> http://ncdnhc.org/photo/albums/ncucicann-san-francisco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dafalla at YAHOO.COM Sat Mar 19 14:38:16 2011 From: dafalla at YAHOO.COM (Hago Dafalla) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:38:16 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917EFB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <738562.13063.qm@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friend.     We in the Arab world and third world the only thing available to us to express our will and our freedom from the oppression of dictators is the Internet. Crumbs rulers began to impose their control over the means of communication and not to allow people to express their aspirations to live in freedom and Alkarimz So we hope the information society to pass laws and legislation that protects the freedom of the internet and not withheld for no reason whatsoever.Any ideas?      Looking forward to hearing from you soon.    Thanks Hago Dafalla Sudan ListenRead phonetically --- On Fri, 18/3/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: Internet Freedom To: Date: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 17:22 Welcome Mohab. It is great to see people in Egypt trying to prevent another internet shutdown!Perhaps the best way is through constitutional protections that would establish political speech as a protected sphere, and deny your head of state the right to arbitrarily shut down the Internet or other media of communication.  Another important step is to promote liberalization and competition in the telecommunication industry, so that the licensees are not subject to the direct orders of the government, and there is a more diverse environment among suppliers of service.    Of course, these steps have to be institutionalized by Egyptians mainly, although much can be learned from other countries’ experience.  From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mohab Altlaity Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:19 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Internet Freedom  Hello Everyone; This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from stopping the Internet in their countries .. I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" in some countries against the Internet activists ... Any ideas? Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Sat Mar 19 23:27:57 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:27:57 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <738562.13063.qm@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am reading these appeals from Mohab and Hago with genuine empathy, and yet some concern. The short answer is that in the end there is no silver bullet, yet there may be smaller opportunities for advancement to be discovered and exploited along the way. We live in a world where national sovereignty is still the central organizing principle of public governance. While we do have multinational treaty organizations to help nations organize themselves collectively, those treaties only have as much weight as nations place in them, individually and collectively. ICANN itself is a relatively weak organization, structurally, which may be a blessing at this point as if it became powerful and simultaneously captured by a small selection of nation stakeholders (at the expense of other stakeholders), it could become a force for anti-democratic power. Also, ICANN only addresses DNS at this point. Even if a distributed alternative DNS architecture were to be adopted, as Karl Auerbach and others have discussed, there are still physical bottlenecks that can easily be controlled by a national government. The network topology is not uniform, but rather it has "fat pipes and thin pipes" and "supernodes and mini-nodes" that describe a sort of hierarchical structure. The supernodes and fat pipes are the bottlenecks, which makes it relatively easy to target those choke-points. The "information society" is not a coherent, intact governing institution like a national government (not that all national governments can necessarily be described as "coherent" -- but the most coherent ones tend to be the most authoritarian as well). So, there is no comprehensive "legislation" that the information society can pass and enforce the way a national government enforces its laws. ICANN in particular can set certain kinds of narrow policy regarding domain names, but the process for establishing that policy is extraordinarily complicated even compared to free-wheeling democratic legislatures, and ICANN's procedural protocols are often vague or incompletely defined. We seem to spend as much or more time discussing policy-making protocol as we do discussing actual policy in the advisory councils, constituencies and stakeholder groups, especially as ICANN is in the middle of a thorough restructuring of these policy-making bodies. Most of what civil society attempts to do at ICANN is simply to push back at bad policy, rather than advance policy that could actively sustain and support individual liberties in a broad sense. Some ideas, now: (1) The physical infrastructure of the networks is as important as any software architecture. In order to protect the physical networks from control by a central authority, you need to explore "grid" or "mesh" networks that are connected at the end-user node level, without any hierarchical topology to create bottlenecks that can be used to enforce access and control. There is a limit to how much you can do with grid/mesh: you can't get across an ocean without either a satellite link or a big cable across the ocean floor, and those will continue to remain bottlenecks for the indefinite future. Also, each individual node needs its own power source, and the density and proximity of nodes needs to reach a certain threshold in order to get it working with any real effectiveness. But, local grids/meshes could be very useful for local organization, which is useful entirely separately from international visibility. (2) Any infrastructure that is critical for business activity cannot be "turned off" without unacceptable impact on the economy of a nation, and to the extent that can be leveraged for public interest purposes it may limit the extent to which a national government can prevent it (I'm thinking about dial-up telephone, "POTS" or "plain old telephone service"). This was important in Egypt, if I understand correctly, once the government had blocked DNS addressing within the country -- it allowed some modest degree of Internet access via Europe in order to get messages out of the country. (3) Encryption technology can be used to protect privacy of communications, and to some extent privacy of identity, especially on something like a grid/mesh network, so that even if government authorities get onto that network they may not be able to get too far with it, without a great deal of "human intelligence" first. These are all possibilities to be explored on a unilateral bottom-up technological basis, rather than from a top-down legislative basis. Maybe others here have other ideas as well. Whatever "information society" is, it does not have control over national legislation, so I don't think that is a fruitful path to explore at this time. To the extent that we have international governance (resolutions, treaties, and enforcement), it is currently conducted mostly through national representatives, respecting national sovereignty. This particular point is currently at issue in ICANN (I don't know what progress may have been made this past week in that regard), but I don't think that one should expect it to actively support the goals of (civilian) "Internet Freedom" in a broad sense either way. Either governments will gain more powerful control through the GAC, in which case it becomes yet another lever of national sovereign control, or else the GAC is kept in a more balanced role with other stakeholder groups, in which case the variety of interests among those various stakeholders often leads to impasses and stalemates rather than strong prompt action in terms of policy in the public interest. Either way, policy takes long stretches of time to be established, because the differences are deep and often have the potential for broad impact, and consensus is not guaranteed in those cases. Lack of consensus prevents movement in and of itself. Not every stakeholder in "information society" is concerned directly with civil liberties and the public interest (law enforcement may have different ideas about the "public interest" than political activists, for example -- commercial and intellectual property interests may think differently about whose freedom is most important compared to consumer and non-commercial groups, for another), so one cannot look there for a unified front to protect Internet Freedom. So, don't look to the "top level" of organization to solve these issues, but dig down into the details and find the smaller opportunities. Big jumps are not going to happen, so look for the smaller steps forward. Ultimately, this is an ongoing mission and the outcome is not assured either way. It requires engagement and persistence indefinitely, because whatever individual battles might be resolved at any point in time, tomorrow is always another day, and neither victory nor defeat can always be guaranteed to endure. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 6:38 AM -0700 3/19/11, Hago Dafalla wrote: >Dear friend. > > > We in the Arab world and third world the only thing available to us to >express our will and our freedom from the oppression of dictators is the >Internet. Crumbs rulers began to impose their control over the means of >communication and not to allow people to express their aspirations to live >in freedom and Alkarimz So we hope the information society to pass laws >and legislation that protects the freedom of the internet and not withheld >for no reason whatsoever.Any ideas? > > Looking forward to hearing from you soon. > > Thanks > >Hago Dafalla >Sudan > >Listen >Read phonetically > > > >--- On Fri, 18/3/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >From: Milton L Mueller >Subject: Re: Internet Freedom >To: >Date: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 17:22 > >Welcome Mohab. It is great to see people in Egypt trying to prevent >another internet shutdown! > >Perhaps the best way is through constitutional protections that would >establish political speech as a protected sphere, and deny your head of >state the right to arbitrarily shut down the Internet or other media of >communication. > > > >Another important step is to promote liberalization and competition in the >telecommunication industry, so that the licensees are not subject to the >direct orders of the government, and there is a more diverse environment >among suppliers of service. > > > >Of course, these steps have to be institutionalized by Egyptians mainly, >although much can be learned from other countries' experience. > > > >From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of >Mohab Altlaity >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:19 AM >To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Internet Freedom > > > >Hello Everyone; >This is Mohab Altlaity from Egypt .. >I'm new to this mailing list ... i have just joined :) .. > >I'm not sure if you discussed this topic before or not .. >It is about the Internet freedom ... how to prevent any country from >stopping the Internet in their countries .. >I wanna find a way to prevent what happened before "and can be done again" >in some countries against the Internet activists ... > >Any ideas? > > > >Mohab Mohammad Altlaity >Embedded SW Engineer, >VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. >http://www.valeo.com > >Mobile: 0106938463 > > > > From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Sat Mar 19 23:44:34 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:44:34 -0400 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Dan for a well thought out contribution to this thread. ISOC-NY President David Solomonoff has written about some of the pitfalls: http://www.bloggernews.net/126134 Internet freedom initiatives must be independent of political connotations, run on a decentralized infrastructure, and use technology that is subject to public review by security experts. Most importantly, users must have complete trust in the skills and integrity of the people providing those tools and services. If they don’t the cure could prove worse than the disease. On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > I am reading these appeals from Mohab and Hago with genuine empathy, and > yet some concern. The short answer is that in the end there is no silver > bullet, yet there may be smaller opportunities for advancement to be > discovered and exploited along the way. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM Sun Mar 20 12:09:50 2011 From: compeng.mohab at YAHOO.COM (Mohab Altlaity) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:09:50 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <486829.79840.qm@web58503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Thank you all for your contribution .. I was discussing this issue with a friend "Lisa" who asked me if i'm speaking from a law perspective or from a technical perspective .. For me, i think we should work in parallel in both directions .. From law perspective For ICANN, we can deal with that through GAC or something .. we may push towards an agreement regarding this issue .. I believe that ICANN can help a lot in that .. ICANN can oppose some constrains on the registrars, and the registries ... i believe that ICANN can do a lot "if they wanted to :) "... But, even if we have the agreements and the laws, some regime systems will pay pass those laws .. of course the laws and the agreements are important to limit that from happening .. but, still it can happen .. So, we need also to find a technical solution ... >From a technical perspective .. ICANN can encourage private sectors to work together finding a solution ... For me as a computer engineer, i can start a search to find a technical solution for this issue, but i need a sponsor and a wide support ... The social communities can fight for the Internet freedom .. but if they are dealing with a regime systems they will not be enough to end that! * So, I believe, we need to start pushing towards an agreement between all the countries "we may ask for the UN or ITU help" ... * In the same time, gather some private sectors to start a research to find a technical solution .. Mohab Mohammad Altlaity Embedded SW Engineer, VIAS Egypt -Valeo Interbranch Automotive Software. http://www.valeo.com Mobile: 0106938463 ________________________________ From: Joly MacFie To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Sent: Sun, March 20, 2011 12:44:34 AM Subject: Re: Internet Freedom Thanks Dan for a well thought out contribution to this thread. ISOC-NY President David Solomonoff has written about some of the pitfalls: http://www.bloggernews.net/126134 Internet freedom initiatives must be independent of political connotations, run on a decentralized infrastructure, and use technology that is subject to public review by security experts. Most importantly, users must have complete trust in the skills and integrity of the people providing those tools and services. >If they don’t the cure could prove worse than the disease. On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: I am reading these appeals from Mohab and Hago with genuine empathy, and >yet some concern. The short answer is that in the end there is no silver >bullet, yet there may be smaller opportunities for advancement to be >discovered and exploited along the way. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy at SELTZER.COM Sun Mar 20 19:20:18 2011 From: wendy at SELTZER.COM (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:20:18 -0400 Subject: NCUC Friday pre-meeting event Message-ID: <4D864562.2000806@seltzer.com> Congratulations again on a great and productive event. I heard praise for it many times throughout the week from people across the ICANN organization. I think it showed NCUC in a strong light to those outside the constituency and got the week off to a good start for those within. Thanks to all whose efforts made it happen! Robin, Brenden, Konstantinos, Bill, Milton, and many more. Best, --Wendy (trying to get my send-from address right!) -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Sun Mar 20 20:51:48 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:51:48 -0700 Subject: Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <486829.79840.qm@web58503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A few comments interspersed: At 4:09 AM -0700 3/20/11, Mohab Altlaity wrote: >For ICANN, we can deal with that through GAC or something .. we may push >towards an agreement regarding this issue .. >I believe that ICANN can help a lot in that .. > >ICANN can oppose some constrains on the registrars, and the registries ... > >i believe that ICANN can do a lot "if they wanted to :) "... Be careful here. There is no unified "they" at ICANN (other than perhaps the staff, who really aren't supposed to be setting policy itself -- perhaps the Board, but there is variety of opinion there too, and the advisory and supporting stakeholder organizations are supposed to be developing the policies). I would not look to GAC to resolve this in a way that you want, because there are some governments that have different goals than you. Because of that, I would not look to give GAC any unilateral sort of power to make such decisions. Even in its "ideal" form, ICANN is not so much an *entity* to make law, but rather a *place* for policy consensus to be reached among various parties. But this ideal seemingly is not genuinely at hand, just yet. >even if we have the agreements and the laws, some regime systems will >[bypass] those laws .. of course the laws and the agreements are important >to limit that from happening .. but, still it can happen .. Indeed, individual national "regimes" will act in whatever they deem to be their political self-interest, and we cannot always count on that being the same as the public interest. >From a technical perspective .. ICANN can encourage private sectors to >work together finding a solution ... ICANN in principle is supposed to be doing this, but the details as to how this works are complicated, often incompletely specified, sometimes hidden from view or inexplicably vetoed by staff, etc. The protocol of how ICANN "encourages" consensus is itself a matter of dispute. This limits ICANN's effectiveness in actually reaching consensus on matters of substance. >For me as a computer engineer, i can start a search to find a technical >solution for this issue, but i need a sponsor and a wide support ... This matter of insufficient support/resources/sponsorship is not only an issue with developing countries! The non-profit/civil-society sector in developed countries encounters the same issues relative to better-funded commercial and intellectual property stakeholders. We're all volunteers here, but some people's volunteering is covered by paid employment, and they have a structural advantage as a result. ICANN has not solved this problem, and has barely even addressed it outright (a few stipends available here and there, but it seems to me mere "window dressing"). This is an abject oversight in the overall ICANN paradigm, in my opinion. It allows the "class divide" between the wealthy and the non-wealthy to importantly shape the dynamics of seeking consensus within ICANN's processes, such as they are. The money gap exists not only between developed and developing countries, but also within developed countries themselves, not least of which increasingly in the United States over the last few decades. This is a sore spot in American domestic politics, and is particularly acute since the last election. We have not resolved this "at home" and it has been getting worse since the 80s. I don't have any sort of ready answer to this problem. (If I did, I'd be famous...) It is important to understand that there is no easy solution to this, and to take it into account as status quo. >The social communities can fight for the Internet freedom .. but if they >are dealing with a regime systems they will not be enough to end that! > >So, I believe, we need to start pushing towards an agreement between all >the countries "we may ask for the UN or ITU help" ... >In the same time, gather some private sectors to start a research to find >a technical solution .. My sense is that an agreement between all the countries (that achieves the goals of the "underclass") is not likely any time soon (partly because countries with different goals will likely have enough veto power to prevent it). I'm not saying not to try, but don't get your hopes and expectations up too high. It will be enough of a victory simply to prevent a bad agreement between all the countries from coming to pass, even better to make very small steps that progress toward useful goals. Beyond that, I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. The technical approach is of course one of the prime areas of expertise among many of those who do participate in ICANN's policy-making processes, and those who share the goals of empowering the underclass might well share ideas and support among themselves, and look for ways to broaden the awareness of the issues and the information about how one might go about addressing them technologically. This might be more likely to occur within particular constituencies (non-commercial and consumer, and at-large) than in the greater policy-making arena at ICANN, if ICANN is to be involved at all. However I don't expect to see much if any of this issuing from ICANN as consensus policy. Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Sun Mar 20 21:47:01 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:47:01 -0400 Subject: NCUC Friday pre-meeting event In-Reply-To: <4D864562.2000806@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Although only participating remotely. I thought so too. Very much so. I am wondering how much of a recording was made? I'm already working with Nada on getting the Town Hall vid (some slight probs there, sorry to say) - shall I ask her about Friday? j On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Congratulations again on a great and productive event. I heard praise > for it many times throughout the week from people across the ICANN > organization. I think it showed NCUC in a strong light to those outside > the constituency and got the week off to a good start for those within. > > Thanks to all whose efforts made it happen! Robin, Brenden, > Konstantinos, Bill, Milton, and many more. > > Best, > --Wendy > (trying to get my send-from address right!) > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 > Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > https://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 21 20:03:36 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:03:36 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx Message-ID: http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic read the comments too! dd -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Mon Mar 21 21:06:38 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:06:38 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917FBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in messy ways - love it or leave it. From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of DeeDee Halleck Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic read the comments too! dd -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Mon Mar 21 21:53:11 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:53:11 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917FBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D87BAB7.80306@gmail.com> I've been having trouble understanding the general opinion on this. What is wrong with more TLD?????? This, to me, is good PER SE. This guy (Morris) goes on and on about how .xxx it won't change anything, but, why would it have to change anything???? Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. I'm one to give a whole bunch of consideration to aesthetically-grounded points. But for the life of me, i cannot see how technical people find TLD expansion inaesthetic. Nicolas On 21/03/2011 4:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he > been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a > God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what > names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a > similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to > admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice > to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, > decentralized medium evolves in messy ways -- love it or leave it. > > *From:*NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On > Behalf Of *DeeDee Halleck > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM > *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > > read the comments too! > > dd > > > -- > > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Mon Mar 21 22:21:00 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:21:00 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87BAB7.80306@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think the silver lining on all this is that it does cause people at-large (excuse me) to ponder the whole issue. We should be capitalizing on it by issuing a statement. j On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > I've been having trouble understanding the general opinion on this. What > is wrong with more TLD?????? This, to me, is good PER SE. This guy (Morris) > goes on and on about how .xxx it won't change anything, but, why would it > have to change anything???? > > Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and > forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. > > I'm one to give a whole bunch of consideration to aesthetically-grounded > points. But for the life of me, i cannot see how technical people find TLD > expansion inaesthetic. > > Nicolas > > > On 21/03/2011 4:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Same old arguments we’ve heard thousands of times before. Where has he > been? It’s sad that so many technical people think that they have a > God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are > allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to > me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was > largely aesthetic. He didn’t think it was nice to “clutter up” the Top > level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in > messy ways – love it or leave it. > > > > *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] > *On Behalf Of *DeeDee Halleck > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM > *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > > > > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > > read the comments too! > > dd > > > > > -- > > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Mon Mar 21 22:42:04 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:42:04 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D87C62C.70309@churchofreality.org> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? On 3/21/2011 12:03 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > > read the comments too! > dd > > > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 22 00:38:43 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:38:43 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87C62C.70309@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? > Why not? They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more .com registrations. One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I j > > On 3/21/2011 12:03 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > >> >> http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic >> >> read the comments too! >> dd >> >> >> -- >> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org >> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 01:56:24 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:56:24 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D87F3B8.6060601@churchofreality.org> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel > wrote: > > He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? > > > > Why not? > > They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do > have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few > more .com registrations. > > One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the > phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. > > > BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I > > The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for their money. I don't see the difference between that and any other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's instructional information. I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: sluts.com sluts.xxx I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 22 02:18:04 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:18:04 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87F3B8.6060601@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. See http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this application through cost nothing? j On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel > wrote: > >> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? > > > > Why not? > > They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do have > years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more .com > registrations. > > One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the > phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. > > > BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I > > > The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why should > one kind of business be charged more that another. What you refer to as > "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us would be here. We all > owe our very existence to "smut". > > There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good porn is > not easy to produce and those people work hard for their money. I don't see > the difference between that and any other subject matter covered under > copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual property, although it's > not porn. It's instructional information. > > I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, running a > nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other business that some > people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN > becoming the moral police. > > The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx and > that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a test needs to > be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference > between these domain names: > > sluts.com > sluts.xxx > > I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. > > Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want kids and > Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a right to have porn > and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling issue > that helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I > wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx > listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. Charging > more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 02:30:54 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:30:54 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87F3B8.6060601@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4D87FBCE.7090408@gmail.com> Geez guys, sorry about the capitalization, and the general tone. Nicolas From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 02:32:40 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:32:40 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D87FC38.8030107@churchofreality.org> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. > > The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are > represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - > which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure > registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. > > See > http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf > > > As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this > application through cost nothing? > > j > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel > wrote: > > > > On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >> > wrote: >> >> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than >> .COM ? >> >> >> >> Why not? >> >> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they >> do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are >> few more .com registrations. >> >> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of >> the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >> >> >> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >> >> > > The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". > Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. What > you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of > us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". > > There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good > porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for their > money. I don't see the difference between that and any other > subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally own adult > intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's instructional > information. > > I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, > running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other > business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought > we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. > > The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for > .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and > such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - I > don't see the moral difference between these domain names: > > sluts.com > sluts.xxx > > I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. > > Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want > kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a > right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of > a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of > porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws > requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it > moved there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx helps > defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 03:02:39 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:02:39 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D87FC38.8030107@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4D88033F.5090500@gmail.com> The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the heaviest operations than it should the easiest? Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the sake of global accessibility or some such aim. I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment (including bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than other prospective gTLDs? Nicolas On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the > .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for > litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx equally? > I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules articulated > that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs are covered do > we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? > > Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. > > On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >> >> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are >> represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - >> which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure >> registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. >> >> See >> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >> >> >> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing >> this application through cost nothing? >> >> j >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>> > wrote: >>> >>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more >>> than .COM ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Why not? >>> >>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they >>> do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there >>> are few more .com registrations. >>> >>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of >>> the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >>> >>> >>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>> >>> >> >> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". >> Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. >> What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which >> none of us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". >> >> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". >> Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for >> their money. I don't see the difference between that and any >> other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally >> own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's >> instructional information. >> >> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, >> running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other >> business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought >> we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. >> >> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for >> .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and >> such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - >> I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: >> >> sluts.com >> sluts.xxx >> >> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >> >> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't >> want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there >> is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is >> sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and >> avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want >> to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But >> if more of it moved there it would help both sides. Charging more >> for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 03:08:15 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:08:15 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D88033F.5090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D88048F.70604@churchofreality.org> I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me would be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm not a supporter of sin taxes. On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining > show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a > public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the > heaviest operations than it should the easiest? > > Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving > first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will > certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? > > Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think > along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the sake > of global accessibility or some such aim. > > I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to suggest > that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one that is > not based on justifiable costs of deployment (including bureaucratic). > If that is so, than i lament with you. > > Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than > other prospective gTLDs? > > Nicolas > > On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the >> .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for >> litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx >> equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules >> articulated that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs are >> covered do we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? >> >> Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. >> >> On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >>> >>> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are >>> represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - >>> which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure >>> registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. >>> >>> See >>> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing >>> this application through cost nothing? >>> >>> j >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more >>>> than .COM ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not? >>>> >>>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And >>>> they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think >>>> there are few more .com registrations. >>>> >>>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony >>>> of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". >>> Why should one kind of business be charged more that another. >>> What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which >>> none of us would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut". >>> >>> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". >>> Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for >>> their money. I don't see the difference between that and any >>> other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally >>> own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's >>> instructional information. >>> >>> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, >>> running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other >>> business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I >>> thought we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. >>> >>> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for >>> .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and >>> such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - >>> I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: >>> >>> sluts.com >>> sluts.xxx >>> >>> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >>> >>> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't >>> want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there >>> is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is >>> sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and >>> avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever >>> want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx >>> listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. >>> Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx >>> in the first place. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 03:13:04 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:13:04 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D88048F.70604@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <4D8805B0.6030909@gmail.com> Agreed On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me would > be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm not a > supporter of sin taxes. > > On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: >> The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining >> show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a >> public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the >> heaviest operations than it should the easiest? >> >> Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving >> first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will >> certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? >> >> Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think >> along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the >> sake of global accessibility or some such aim. >> >> I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to >> suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one >> that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment (including >> bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. >> >> Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher >> than other prospective gTLDs? >> >> Nicolas >> >> On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >>> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should >>> the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for >>> litigation? Are we charging the domains that opposed the .xxx >>> equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard and set of rules >>> articulated that apply to all domains. After the litigation costs >>> are covered do we go back to $10 like everyone else pays? >>> >>> Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. >>> >>> On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >>>> >>>> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are >>>> represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - >>>> which at the same time it is up to the registry to make sure >>>> registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all about. >>>> >>>> See >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing >>>> this application through cost nothing? >>>> >>>> j >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more >>>>> than .COM ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why not? >>>>> >>>>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And >>>>> they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think >>>>> there are few more .com registrations. >>>>> >>>>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony >>>>> of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but >>>> "why". Why should one kind of business be charged more that >>>> another. What you refer to as "smut" is human reproduction >>>> without which none of us would be here. We all owe our very >>>> existence to "smut". >>>> >>>> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". >>>> Good porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for >>>> their money. I don't see the difference between that and any >>>> other subject matter covered under copyright law. I personally >>>> own adult intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's >>>> instructional information. >>>> >>>> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, >>>> running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other >>>> business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I >>>> thought we were against ICANN becoming the moral police. >>>> >>>> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for >>>> .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality >>>> and such a test needs to be applied to other similar domains. >>>> Also - I don't see the moral difference between these domain names: >>>> >>>> sluts.com >>>> sluts.xxx >>>> >>>> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >>>> >>>> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't >>>> want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there >>>> is a right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is >>>> sort of a truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and >>>> avoiders of porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever >>>> want to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx >>>> listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both >>>> sides. Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of >>>> having .xxx in the first place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 22 06:30:26 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:30:26 -0700 Subject: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers? Message-ID: <4E52672E-8772-46FF-A050-1DB6EFB636CE@ipjustice.org> We need more community involvement in the planning of the discussions / meetings held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the usual Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff unilaterally plan a number of sessions that should require input from the community. For example, last week in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute session on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff unilaterally organized for a series of law enforcement officials to provide a "parade of horribles" in order to justify less consumer privacy protections at ICANN. When I asked ICANN staff why there wasn't any privacy experts speaking during the public session, the staff member said they "assumed privacy was not an issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously this is a problem. ICANN staff unilaterally deciding what the discussions topics are, what the important issues are, how to present them, what speakers to invite, and what perspectives get heard. The way these discussions are framed obviously plays a key role in steering the direction of the policy development process. All of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we really should have more of a say in how it is run and the substance of the discussions planned during ICANN week is a good place to start. These discussions are a place where the community should frame the discussion and set the topics, while staff merely facilitate the wishes of the community. It feels too much like the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. How can we the community begin to wrestle some control away from the staff in terms of how topics are selected and how discussions are organized during these meetings? Thanks, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From tlhackque at YAHOO.COM Tue Mar 22 10:24:30 2011 From: tlhackque at YAHOO.COM (tlhackque) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:24:30 -0700 Subject: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers? Message-ID: <786342.7036.qm@web120317.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I've watched this list for some time.  It seems that railing against the ICANN staff is a favorite pastime. Call me naive, but I'm willing to believe that the staff isn't evil. Seems to me that there are two reasonable approaches to having more influence: 1) Identify the key staff members, form a positive relationship and educate them on our issues and perspective.  Start by setting up regular meetings; eventually they'll call us. 2) Encourage ICANN leadership to recruit staff from our community - identify good prospects, see if we can have a representative in the hiring/interview loop - so we have people inside at at the table. Join them; don't beat (on) them...  --------------------------------------------------------- This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed.   We need more community involvement in the planning of the discussions / meetings held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the usual Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff unilaterally plan a number of sessions that should require input from the community. For example, last week in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute session on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff unilaterally organized for a series of law enforcement officials to provide a "parade of horribles" in order to justify less consumer privacy protections at ICANN. When I asked ICANN staff why there wasn't any privacy experts speaking during the public session, the staff member said they "assumed privacy was not an issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously this is a problem. ICANN staff unilaterally deciding what the discussions topics are, what the important issues are, how to present them, what speakers to invite, and what perspectives get heard. The way these discussions are framed obviously plays a key role in steering the direction of the policy development process. All of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we really should have more of a say in how it is run and the substance of the discussions planned during ICANN week is a good place to start. These discussions are a place where the community should frame the discussion and set the topics, while staff merely facilitate the wishes of the community. It feels too much like the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. How can we the community begin to wrestle some control away from the staff in terms of how topics are selected and how discussions are organized during these meetings? Thanks, Robin 　 　 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.orge: robin at ipjustice.org From email at HAKIK.ORG Tue Mar 22 11:38:12 2011 From: email at HAKIK.ORG (Hakik Rahman) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:38:12 +0000 Subject: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers? In-Reply-To: <786342.7036.qm@web120317.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201103221039.p2MAcsQ1014017@mx2.syr.edu> I couldn't refrain from making a comment. I agree with you, may be I 'll also sound naive, but like your both ideas, though the first one would be easier to me. Thanking you, Hakik At 09:24 AM 3/22/2011, tlhackque wrote: >I've watched this list for some time. It seems >that railing against the ICANN staff is a >favorite pastime. Call me naive, but I'm willing >to believe that the staff isn't evil. Seems to >me that there are two reasonable approaches to >having more influence: 1) Identify the key >staff members, form a positive relationship and >educate them on our issues and >perspective. Start by setting up regular >meetings; eventually they'll call us. 2) >Encourage ICANN leadership to recruit staff >from our community - identify good prospects, >see if we can have a representative in the >hiring/interview loop - so we have people >inside at at the table. Join them; don't beat >(on) >them... >--------------------------------------------------------- >This communication may not represent my >employer's views, if any, on the matters >discussed.  We need more community involvement >in the planning of the discussions / meetings >held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the >usual Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held >during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff unilaterally >plan a number of sessions that should require >input from the community. For example, last week >in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute >session on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff >unilaterally organized for a series of law >enforcement officials to provide a "parade of >horribles" in order to justify less consumer >privacy protections at ICANN. When I asked ICANN >staff why there wasn't any privacy experts >speaking during the public session, the staff >member said they "assumed privacy was not an >issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously >this is a problem. ICANN staff unilaterally >deciding what the discussions topics are, what >the important issues are, how to present them, >what speakers to invite, and what perspectives >get heard. The way these discussions are framed >obviously plays a key role in steering the >direction of the policy development process. All >of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we >really should have more of a say in how it is >run and the substance of the discussions planned >during ICANN week is a good place to start. >These discussions are a place where the >community should frame the discussion and set >the topics, while staff merely facilitate the >wishes of the community. It feels too much like >the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. How >can we the community begin to wrestle some >control away from the staff in terms of how >topics are selected and how discussions are >organized during these meetings? Thanks, Robin >　 　 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive >Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA >94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.orge: robin at ipjustice.org From ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET Tue Mar 22 11:45:40 2011 From: ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET (Nuno Garcia) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:45:40 +0000 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8805B0.6030909@gmail.com> Message-ID: also agree. but I think the rational here may be simples, and ICANN has given proof of that approach before: this is just a market issue, i.e., demand seems to support a premium price, so why not charge the price the market seems to be available to pay? Abraços!!! Nuno On 22 March 2011 02:13, Nicolas Adam wrote: > Agreed > > > On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > > I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me would be a > reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm not a supporter of > sin taxes. > > On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: > > The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a self-sustaining show > (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that matter, from a public policy > perspective), shouldn't it cost more to deploy the heaviest operations than > it should the easiest? > > Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses moving first > and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear what will certainly prove > out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? > > Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think along the > lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the sake of global > accessibility or some such aim. > > I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to suggest that > there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, one that is not based on > justifiable costs of deployment (including bureaucratic). If that is so, > than i lament with you. > > Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than > other prospective gTLDs? > > Nicolas > > On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > > Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why should the .xxx > users pay for the litigation? Do we charge everyone for litigation? Are we > charging the domains that opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an > objective standard and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. > After the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like everyone > else pays? > > Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. > > On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. > > The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that you are > represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible standards - which at > the same time it is up to the registry to make sure registrants comply with. > That's what sTLD's are all about. > > See > > http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf > > > As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this > application through cost nothing? > > j > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >> wrote: >> >>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ? >> >> >> >> Why not? >> >> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And they do have >> years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more .com >> registrations. >> >> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the >> phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut. >> >> >> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >> >> >> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why >> should one kind of business be charged more that another. What you refer to >> as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us would be here. We >> all owe our very existence to "smut". >> >> There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good porn is >> not easy to produce and those people work hard for their money. I don't see >> the difference between that and any other subject matter covered under >> copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual property, although it's >> not porn. It's instructional information. >> >> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil, running a >> nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other business that some >> people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN >> becoming the moral police. >> >> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx and >> that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a test needs to >> be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference >> between these domain names: >> >> sluts.com >> sluts.xxx >> >> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument. >> >> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want kids >> and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a right to have >> porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling >> issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final >> solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult content to have >> an .xxx listing. But if more of it moved there it would help both sides. >> Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first >> place. >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at CAFONSO.CA Tue Mar 22 14:18:28 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:18:28 -0300 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917FBA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D88A1A4.3090709@cafonso.ca> BTW, my view on Sadowsky's plea against .xxx is that it was very well elaborated, a good script to use in analysing several of Icann's processes, but the .xxx case as it stands now is not one of them -- he missed the central specific points defended very explicitly by Rita, Crocker and others. I am still with the impression that, deeply inside, many of the people who fought against it did so for moral reasons covered by "objective" logical arguments. --c.a. On 03/21/2011 05:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Same old arguments we've heard thousands of times before. Where has he been? It's sad that so many technical people think that they have a God-given right to impose their own idiosyncratic notions of what names are allowable on the rest of us. Tim Berners-Lee once made a similar argument to me and after some back and forth he was forced to admit that his view was largely aesthetic. He didn't think it was nice to "clutter up" the Top level. So BFD, Tim and Tom, a distributed, decentralized medium evolves in messy ways - love it or leave it. > > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of DeeDee Halleck > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:04 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > http://blog.tommorris.org/post/3968125126/tel-xxx-and-mobi-are-all-pointless-and-idiotic > read the comments too! > dd > > > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > > From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 14:56:23 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:56:23 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D88AA87.3020107@churchofreality.org> I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement costs. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why would you think they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx where they would be caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a child molester is with an xxx domain. Does anyone thing they are going to register child-molester.xxx? The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are as different as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking for child molester I would think that something like .info, which spammers seem to like, would be the place to go and it would only be promoted withing the group. A .xxx is like inviting the cops to your house. So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money. The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming the "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a slippery slope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist (Atheist) immoral? In many countries I would be executed for my non-belief because I choose reality first. On 3/22/2011 3:45 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote: > also agree. > > but I think the rational here may be simples, and ICANN has given > proof of that approach before: this is just a market issue, i.e., > demand seems to support a premium price, so why not charge the price > the market seems to be available to pay? > > Abraços!!! > > Nuno > > On 22 March 2011 02:13, Nicolas Adam > wrote: > > Agreed > > > On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >> I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me >> would be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm >> not a supporter of sin taxes. >> >> On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote: >>> The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a >>> self-sustaining show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for >>> that matter, from a public policy perspective), shouldn't it >>> cost more to deploy the heaviest operations than it should the >>> easiest? >>> >>> Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses >>> moving first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear >>> what will certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier cost? >>> >>> Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to >>> think along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, >>> for the sake of global accessibility or some such aim. >>> >>> I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to >>> suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost, >>> one that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment >>> (including bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. >>> >>> Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be >>> higher than other prospective gTLDs? >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: >>>> Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why >>>> should the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge >>>> everyone for litigation? Are we charging the domains that >>>> opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard >>>> and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. After >>>> the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like >>>> everyone else pays? >>>> >>>> Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't. >>>> >>>> On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>>> The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld. >>>>> >>>>> The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is that >>>>> you are represented to adhere to a set of socially responsible >>>>> standards - which at the same time it is up to the registry to >>>>> make sure registrants comply with. That's what sTLD's are all >>>>> about. >>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of >>>>> pushing this application through cost nothing? >>>>> >>>>> j >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost >>>>>> more than .COM ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not? >>>>>> >>>>>> They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. >>>>>> And they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, >>>>>> I think there are few more .com registrations. >>>>>> >>>>>> One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the >>>>>> irony of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied >>>>>> to smut. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board >>>>>> vote at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but >>>>> "why". Why should one kind of business be charged more >>>>> that another. What you refer to as "smut" is human >>>>> reproduction without which none of us would be here. We >>>>> all owe our very existence to "smut". >>>>> >>>>> There is indeed intellectual property associated with >>>>> "smut". Good porn is not easy to produce and those people >>>>> work hard for their money. I don't see the difference >>>>> between that and any other subject matter covered under >>>>> copyright law. I personally own adult intellectual >>>>> property, although it's not porn. It's instructional >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for >>>>> oil, running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or >>>>> any other business that some people disagree on moral >>>>> issues. And I thought we were against ICANN becoming the >>>>> moral police. >>>>> >>>>> The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging >>>>> more for .xxx and that reason has to be based in some sort >>>>> of reality and such a test needs to be applied to other >>>>> similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral difference >>>>> between these domain names: >>>>> >>>>> sluts.com >>>>> sluts.xxx >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation >>>>> argument. >>>>> >>>>> Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people >>>>> don't want kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I >>>>> think there is a right to have porn and a right to avoid >>>>> porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in labeling issue that >>>>> helps both seekers and avoiders of porn. It's not a final >>>>> solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws requiring adult >>>>> content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it moved >>>>> there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx >>>>> helps defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>>>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >>>>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >>>>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP Tue Mar 22 15:16:39 2011 From: aaa at MEIJI.AC.JP (Andrew A. Adams) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:16:39 +0900 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D88AA87.3020107@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <201103221416.p2MEGdj1007004@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> > I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement cost= > s. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why would you t= > hink they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx where they would be = > caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a child molester is with an x= > xx domain. Does anyone thing they are going to register child-molester.xxx? > > The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are as dif= > ferent as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking for child mole= > ster I would think that something like .info, which spammers seem to like, = > would be the place to go and it would only be promoted withing the group. A= > .xxx is like inviting the cops to your house. > > So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money. > > The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming the = > "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a slippery sl= > ope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist (Atheist) immoral? In man= > y countries I would be executed for my non-belief because I choose reality = > first. Will the income stream from .xxx be put towards general efforts to attacking the availability of sex abuse images online, not just within .xxx? Or is it proposed that it is only within .xxx that this activity will take place? -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Tue Mar 22 17:09:07 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:09:07 +0200 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran Message-ID: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Now that I have returned home from the San Francisco meeting and started settling back in my work (as well as shake off some of the jet-lag), I would like to take the opportunity to send out a thank you. This was my third meeting, and by far my most successful one (as per my estimates at least). Really glad to have met some of our members who were present and put some faces to the names I've been seeing on this mail list, participate in our working session last Tuesday, and most importantly finally feel like I am truly part of a constituency group within the ICANN community. There's nowhere in the community I would rather belong than in NCUC, and am truly grateful to the warm welcome I received from our members present in San Fran. It meant a lot to me. Having said that, I will follow up as promised on the task of documenting issues related to the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names from last year and pass along whatever I accumulate. On a more personal note, I would also like to pursue ideas on developing some sort of a capacity building program or plan for NCUC members who might need help easing-in to the various issues being tackled by NCUC; whether they be new members or older ones who have not been active. I personally believe that good in-reach into our existing member roster is just as important as our outreach efforts, and that both will be futile unless members are encouraged and supported to participate. I know that we are a constituency of volunteers, and an initiative and effort should be shown by members to actively participate, but take it from me, it is not that easy. I believe we have a duty as the only exclusive representation of non-commercial to promote and foster non-commercial representation in the ICANN community, and I also believe this is of equal importance to tackling the various issues that matter to us. Out of the 1,700 participants in San Fran, I wonder how many were non-comm? I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their intent to do so soon. And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don't hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. Thanks. Amr Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at LTU.SE Tue Mar 22 17:25:19 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:25:19 -0400 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Message-ID: <560EC845-0B10-46F4-93F0-43F3B08E056C@ltu.se> On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don’t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some information about who and what we are. a. From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 17:43:31 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:43:31 +0300 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for > attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow > informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their > intent to do so soon. It was pleasure to be there, thanks for inviting us. > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met > President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was > instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that > it would be great if he joined (although don’t hold your breath that he > will). I hope this meets with general approval. Good on ya! If he joins us many domain name policy parameters will definitely change. From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Tue Mar 22 17:45:38 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:45:38 -0400 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <560EC845-0B10-46F4-93F0-43F3B08E056C@ltu.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met > President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was > instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that > it would be great if he joined (although don’t hold your breath that he > will). I hope this meets with general approval. > > > I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some > information about who and what we are. > Agree. And this need not be more than a simple one-page letter which I've started - http://piratepad.net/12wRNGqtR2 - that contains a call to action to join NCUC. Anyone should feel free to edit as they see fit. Should we try to follow up with any new potential members that we met in SF by end of next week? > > a. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 22 17:59:23 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:59:23 -0700 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <005901cbe8ab$88765860$99630920$@net> Message-ID: Thank you so much, Amr! NCUC was very lucky to have your input and participation - especially during the constituency meeting. And we really appreciate your outreach with Clinton and suggestions for better incorporating the existing membership base. A compilation of information on the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names would be an extremely valuable resource at this point. Thank you again! All best, Robin On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Now that I have returned home from the San Francisco meeting and started settling back in my work (as well as shake off some of the jet-lag), I would like to take the opportunity to send out a thank you. This was my third meeting, and by far my most successful one (as per my estimates at least). Really glad to have met some of our members who were present and put some faces to the names I’ve been seeing on this mail list, participate in our working session last Tuesday, and most importantly finally feel like I am truly part of a constituency group within the ICANN community. There’s nowhere in the community I would rather belong than in NCUC, and am truly grateful to the warm welcome I received from our members present in San Fran. It meant a lot to me. > > Having said that, I will follow up as promised on the task of documenting issues related to the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names from last year and pass along whatever I accumulate. On a more personal note, I would also like to pursue ideas on developing some sort of a capacity building program or plan for NCUC members who might need help easing-in to the various issues being tackled by NCUC; whether they be new members or older ones who have not been active. I personally believe that good in-reach into our existing member roster is just as important as our outreach efforts, and that both will be futile unless members are encouraged and supported to participate. I know that we are a constituency of volunteers, and an initiative and effort should be shown by members to actively participate, but take it from me, it is not that easy. I believe we have a duty as the only exclusive representation of non-commercial to promote and foster non-commercial representation in the ICANN community, and I also believe this is of equal importance to tackling the various issues that matter to us. Out of the 1,700 participants in San Fran, I wonder how many were non-comm? > > I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their intent to do so soon. > > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don’t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Tue Mar 22 18:20:04 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:20:04 +0000 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you Amr for your participation, comments and contributions throughout the ICANN week. We are indeed very lucky to have you join us and I am very much looking forward to working with you on getting the information on the DHS/ICE domain name seizures. Thanks for spreading the message to Clinton and for encouraging other members to join. Thank you again! All the best KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Τρίτη, 22 Μαρτίου 2011 4:59 μμ To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Great Meeting at San Fran Thank you so much, Amr! NCUC was very lucky to have your input and participation - especially during the constituency meeting. And we really appreciate your outreach with Clinton and suggestions for better incorporating the existing membership base. A compilation of information on the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names would be an extremely valuable resource at this point. Thank you again! All best, Robin On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Now that I have returned home from the San Francisco meeting and started settling back in my work (as well as shake off some of the jet-lag), I would like to take the opportunity to send out a thank you. This was my third meeting, and by far my most successful one (as per my estimates at least). Really glad to have met some of our members who were present and put some faces to the names I've been seeing on this mail list, participate in our working session last Tuesday, and most importantly finally feel like I am truly part of a constituency group within the ICANN community. There's nowhere in the community I would rather belong than in NCUC, and am truly grateful to the warm welcome I received from our members present in San Fran. It meant a lot to me. Having said that, I will follow up as promised on the task of documenting issues related to the DHS/ICE seizures of domain names from last year and pass along whatever I accumulate. On a more personal note, I would also like to pursue ideas on developing some sort of a capacity building program or plan for NCUC members who might need help easing-in to the various issues being tackled by NCUC; whether they be new members or older ones who have not been active. I personally believe that good in-reach into our existing member roster is just as important as our outreach efforts, and that both will be futile unless members are encouraged and supported to participate. I know that we are a constituency of volunteers, and an initiative and effort should be shown by members to actively participate, but take it from me, it is not that easy. I believe we have a duty as the only exclusive representation of non-commercial to promote and foster non-commercial representation in the ICANN community, and I also believe this is of equal importance to tackling the various issues that matter to us. Out of the 1,700 participants in San Fran, I wonder how many were non-comm? I would like to also thank Wendy, Avri, Maria, Alex, and Brenden for attending the Fellowship morning meeting on Thursday. At least one fellow informed me that he applied to join NCUC, and several have expressed their intent to do so soon. And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don't hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. Thanks. Amr Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Tue Mar 22 18:22:55 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:22:55 -0700 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D88DAEF.4040409@churchofreality.org> I too had a great time. It was great meeting all of you too. From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Tue Mar 22 18:24:59 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:24:59 -0700 Subject: CDT policy post on domain name seizures Message-ID: <0BCEEBA9-1E67-42BE-BD16-40C2E134B98B@ipjustice.org> Below is a timely and informative policy post from NCUC member, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) on Internet domain name seizures. Begin forwarded message: > From: Mark Stanley > Date: March 22, 2011 8:39:47 AM PDT > To: "Policy Posts" > Subject: [Policy Posts]CDT Policy Post 17.4: Domain-Name Tactics To Enforce Copyright > > A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties > Online from The Center For Democracy and Technology > > This Policy Post is online: http://cdt.org/policy/cdt-warns-against-widespread-use-domain-name-tactics-enforce-copyright > > CDT Warns Against Widespread Use of Domain-Name Tactics To Enforce Copyright > > (1) CDT Warns Against Widespread Use of Domain-Name Tactics to Enforce Copyright > (2) Domain-name seizure and blocking will be ineffective at reducing infringement > (3) Collateral Impact > (4) Principles for a Sound Policy Approach > __________________________________________ > > 1) CDT Warns Against Widespread Use of Domain-Name Tactics to Enforce Copyright > > A major current topic in the online copyright debate is what to do about "rogue websites" – that is, websites that exist for the purpose of enabling illegal activity, especially copyright infringement and counterfeiting. One prominent idea lately is to have law enforcement authorities seize or block the domain names of such websites. Since late June 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice have relied on civil forfeiture authority, which allows for seizure of property believed to have been used in commission of a crime, to execute seizure warrants for over 100 domain names. Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee developed a bill (S. 3804, the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" or "COICA)" which would have codified and expanded this practice. Similar legislation is likely to return in the current Congress, as both the House and Senate held hearings on the "rogue website" problem in recent weeks. > > CDT supports the goal of reducing online infringement. Large-scale copyright infringement undermines First Amendment values in promoting expression and threatens the growth of new media and e-commerce. Websites whose main purpose and activity is to enable and promote infringement are true "bad actors" and deserve to be the target of law enforcement. > > Nonetheless, CDT believes that legislation that would codify and encourage large-scale reliance on domain names as an enforcement mechanism would be a serious mistake. Meaningful law enforcement in this area requires, above all, catching and punishing actual criminals who operate "rogue sites." By contrast, focusing on domain names would prove ineffective at achieving any lasting reduction in infringement. At the same time, the domain-name approach would risk significant collateral damage, > > CDT explained its concerns in a written statement it submitted for the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held in February, and again last week in testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. > > CDT Policy Post on Copyright Enforcement Trend: http://www.cdt.org/policy/copyright-enforcement-policies-could-have-broad-impact > > CDT Comments to Department of Commerce's Internet Task Force Copyright Inquiry: http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT%20Comments%20to%20NTIA%20Copyright%20Task%20Force.pdf > > CDT Statement for Senate Hearing: http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/20110216_rogue_sites_statement.pdf > > CDT Testimony for House Hearing: http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/20110314_sohn_testimony.pdf > > __________________________________________ > > 2) Domain-name seizure and blocking will be ineffective at reducing infringement > > Domain-name seizure and blocking can be easily circumvented, and thus will have little ultimate effect on online infringement. > > The DNS performs a relatively simple function: translating text URLs (like www.cdt.org) into machine-readable IP addresses (like 72.32.6.120). Seizing a domain name involves ordering the relevant registrar or registry to effectively revoke the websites' domain name registration, thus preventing the site from continuing to use that particular name. Blocking a domain name involves ordering a domain name lookup service (for most users, a function performed by their ISP) not to respond to any user request to look up the IP address associated with that name. > > Significantly, neither seizing nor blocking a website's domain name removes the site – or any infringing content – from the Internet. The site and all its contents remain connected at the same IP address. And there are numerous ways a targeted site may still be reached. > > In the case of a domain name seizure, the site's operator could simply register a new domain name for the site. For example, most of the sports-streaming sites connected to ten domains ICE seized in February quickly reappeared and are easily located at new domains. Alternatively or in addition, the site's operators could publicize its IP address, which users could then bookmark in lieu of saving or remembering the domain name. Or a site's operators could distribute a small browser plug-in or other piece of software to allow users to retrieve the IP addresses of the operators' servers. Such simple tools would make the process of following a site around the web virtually automatic. > > The same tactics could be used to evade domain name blocking. In addition, a site's users could easily switch DNS-lookup providers to avoid blocking orders. Savvy users could set up local DNS resolvers on their own computers, thus avoiding any DNS servers that have been ordered to block. Alternatively, third-party public DNS servers are widely available, and more would inevitably spring up outside the United States to avoid being subject to blocking orders. For Internet users, pointing DNS requests to these unfiltered servers would be simply a matter of updating a single parameter in their operating systems' Internet settings. For users to whom this seems complicated, software tools could easily automate the process. > > All of these circumvention techniques are likely to occur if domain-name seizure and blocking become widespread. Infringement sites have a highly motivated and relatively savvy user base, and word will spread quickly as to how best to circumvent any blocking. The workarounds themselves are trivial and would quickly go viral, ultimately rendering the domain-name approach almost entirely ineffective. > > __________________________________________ > > 3) Collateral Impact > > The seizure and blocking of domain names would carry a number of collateral risks and costs. > > Overbreadth / Impact on Lawful Speech > > First, widespread use of such tactics would almost certainly affect lawful speech. For example, when domain-name tactics are used against websites with a mix of lawful and unlawful content, all the content is affected; there is no way to narrowly target the unlawful content only. Last year's COICA legislation, despite its purported focus on websites "dedicated to infringing activities," defined that phrase broadly enough to apply to multipurpose sites featuring a wide variety of content. Indeed, under the bill as drafted, user-generated content websites could be subject to domain-name seizure or blocking if even a small minority of users posted infringing material. > > Moreover, a domain name frequently encompasses much more than just an individual website. Many web-hosting services are constructed in a way such that thousands of individual sites, maintained by thousands of individuals, are hosted at subdomains sharing a single parent domain name. Non-web hosts, such as email and instant messaging servers, often share the domain as well. All of this speech stands to be affected if the domain name is seized or blocked. Indeed, a concrete example occurred in February, when ICE mistakenly seized the domain "mooo.com," which turned out to be a parent domain to thousands of innocent and unrelated subdomains. As a result, many small, legitimate websites had their traffic redirected to an ICE banner announcing that the domain had been seized for violating child pornography laws. > > The risk of sweeping in non-infringing content is exacerbated when seizure or blocking orders are issued without a full adversarial hearing, as is the case under both the current ICE seizure process and the proposed COICA legislation. Large-scale use of a one-sided process, under which domain name owners get no opportunity to defend themselves before their names are blocked or seized, creates significant potential for mistakes or overaggressive action. Again, several examples from the recent ICE seizures highlight this risk: the seized sites include several music blogs who claim they had obtained the allegedly infringing material directly from rightsholders for promotional purposes, as well as a Spanish site that has twice been found non-infringing by Spanish courts. > > The potential for overbreadth raises serious constitutional questions regarding the degree to which domain-name seizure and blocking can be narrowly tailored to affect infringing content. Moreover, domain-name seizure and blocking targets an instrumentality of speech (domain names) and creates a prior restraint, effectively trying to censor all future activity at a domain based on illegal activity in the past. Especially given how ineffective domain-name focused enforcement measures are likely be in achieving their stated goal, as discussed above, the approach could be vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge. > > Technical Impact / Cybersecurity > > Widespread seizing and blocking of domain names would present a number of technical challenges that could have an impact on the Internet's reliability, security, and performance. > > For ISPs, redirecting users to a page reading "this website blocked due to infringement" could conflict with implementations of the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC), a security improvement just now rolling out after over 10 years of development. A DNS resolver using DNSSEC simply is not able to give a cryptographically signed response that is false. > > Users' efforts to circumvent blocking orders may have technical and cybersecurity consequences as well. The more ISPs and other major DNS providers are required to block lookup requests for websites that users want to reach, the more users will switch to independent, non-ISP DNS servers. But ISPs' DNS servers offer a crucial window into network usage; migration away from these servers would undermine ISPs' ability to observe and track botnet activity and other cybersecurity threats on their networks. In addition, it would put users at the mercy of potentially unscrupulous foreign DNS servers, which could redirect user traffic for phishing or botnet purposes. It could also undermine the effectiveness of content delivery networks (CDNs), which often rely on the approximate location of users' DNS lookup servers (based on IP address) to choose the best location from which to deliver content. > > International Impact / Precedent > > Enshrining domain-name seizure and blocking in a new statute would invite similar action from other countries, harming U.S. interests and undercutting diplomatic efforts to promote global Internet freedom. > > Following the U.S. example, other countries could try to seize or block the domain names of U.S. websites that are lawful here but that are asserted to violate some foreign law. In the case of domain-name seizure, such action could render the targeted domain inaccessible for the entire world. Moreover, this risk is not limited to repressive regimes. The scope of protection provided by the First Amendment remains the most expansive in the world, and speech protected in the United States remains proscribable in many other democratic countries. Local access to such speech remains a frustration to governments in those countries, and they would welcome a U.S.-based precedent to justify blocking it. > > Setting such a precedent would also undermine US diplomacy. Over forty countries (and growing) now filter the Internet to some degree, and even liberal democracies are considering mandatory filtering and blocking regimes. Historically, the United States has been the strongest global voice against such balkanization of the Internet; the concept of a single, global Internet is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy on Internet matters. If the United States were to set the precedent that any country can order the blocking of a domain name if some of the content at that domain violates the country's laws, it is hard to see what credibility the U.S. would have as it urges other countries not to block access wherever they see fit. > > This does not mean that the United States should not take action against online infringers and encourage other countries to do likewise. The concern is simply that trying to use domain names as the means for fighting infringement would signal U.S. acceptance for the proposition that countries have the right to insist on removal of content from the global Internet as a tactic for enforcing domestic laws – and nothing would limit the application of this approach to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. > > NY Times on music blog seizure: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/media/20music.html > > ArsTechnica on Spanish site seizure: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/us-customs-begins-pre-super-bowl-mole-whacking.ars > > CDT blog post on Mooo.com seizure: http://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/object-lesson-overblocking > > White House blog post on DNSSEC: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/22/a-major-milestone-internet-security > > Security Researcher Dan Kaminsky on COICA's security risks: http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/COICA_Kaminsky_letter.pdf > > __________________________________________ > > 4) Principles for a Sound Policy Approach > > Fighting online infringement is a worthy goal. Based on the analysis above, however, CDT believes that large-scale reliance on enforcement tactics that target domain names would fail any cost-benefit test. > > A sound policy approach in this area should focus first and foremost on catching and punishing true "bad actors." In the case of non-U.S. perpetrators, this will require cooperation with foreign governments. While such cooperation undoubtedly takes some effort, it ultimately offers the most effective approach, because it is the only way to ensure that the "bad guys" and the computer servers they use are actually taken offline for good. > > To the extent policymakers believe new enforcement tools are necessary, they should look for remedies other than domain-name blocking and seizures. Cutting off infringers' sources of financial support would be one area to explore. New remedies should be subject to careful cost-benefit analysis, asking both how effective a measure is likely to be and what collateral impact it may cause. Remedies that aim to sidestep adversarial judicial process would, at a minimum, need to be narrowly tailored and contain carefully crafted procedural safeguards. As the experience with ICE seizures has already begun to demonstrate, any process with insufficient safeguards risks impairing lawful websites and speech. > > Finally, it is important to keep in mind that a full strategy for reducing online infringement requires more than just the "stick" of law enforcement. One of the best defenses against infringement websites is the "carrot" of convenient, easy-to-use lawful choices for consumers to get the content they want in the form they want it. Policymakers should look for ways to encourage the legal marketplace. Public education is crucial as well. Modern information technology is here to stay and will continue to put powerful digital tools in the hands of the public. Inevitably, public norms and attitudes will play a major role in shaping how people choose to use the tools at their disposal. Consumers need better education about what copyright law prohibits and why infringement is both illegal and wrong. > > __________________________________________ > > Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at http://www.cdt.org/. > > This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to here: http://cdt.org/policy/cdt-warns-against-widespread-use-domain-name-tactics-enforce-copyright > > Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of brock at cdt.org > Policy Post 17.4 Copyright 2011 Center for Democracy & Technology > > ############################################################# > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to > Send administrative queries to > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Tue Mar 22 20:03:38 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:03:38 -0400 Subject: some links to video from ICANN San Francisco Message-ID: I've put a bunch of short clips up on youTube. Just some moments I happened to catch at the NCUC meeting and beyond. I had left my main camera in Bolinas on the weekend while visiting my nephew-- and was unable to retrieve it until I left SF. So these were all done on a $69 camera I bought at Target ( without a tripod, the small camera is very hard to hold still!) The lighting sucked and the sound went out after about a minute of taping each time. So I had to chose what was available. I do have better material from the Friday conference which I will post tomorrow. Here's what's up so far: Marc Rotenberg Pleads for Clear, Relevant Language for Consumers i.e. the war against acronyms! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRsL8tUoiz8 Marc Rotenberg on the Goals of a Consumer Constituency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-GIxSA1Rc Robin Gross on Anonymity in US history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou2hvtHrHOY Rafik Dammak at the Town Hall on Tunisian Internet Use http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViOcn3etOSA Dr, Amr El Sadr Speaks about Internet Use in Egypt (from the Town Hall) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPOdbAujDo Thanks to you all for thought-provoking meetings. In the next few days I will embed all of the clips and add some ruminations and documents on the waves blog-- stay tuned. -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 22 21:12:09 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:12:09 -0400 Subject: some links to video from ICANN San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great clips! You might want to make a playlist out of them? I am still working on retrieving the video of the iTownHall. j On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:03 PM, DeeDee Halleck wrote: > I've put a bunch of short clips up on youTube. > Just some moments I happened to catch at the NCUC meeting and beyond. > > I had left my main camera in Bolinas on the weekend while visiting my > nephew-- and was unable to retrieve it until I left SF. So these were all > done on a $69 camera I bought at Target ( without a tripod, the small camera > is very hard to hold still!) The lighting sucked and the sound went out > after about a minute of taping each time. > So I had to chose what was available. I do have better material from > the Friday conference which I will post tomorrow. > > Here's what's up so far: > > Marc Rotenberg Pleads for Clear, Relevant Language for Consumers > i.e. the war against acronyms! > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRsL8tUoiz8 > > Marc Rotenberg on the Goals of a Consumer Constituency > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-GIxSA1Rc > > Robin Gross on Anonymity in US history > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou2hvtHrHOY > > Rafik Dammak at the Town Hall on Tunisian Internet Use > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViOcn3etOSA > > Dr, Amr El Sadr Speaks about Internet Use in Egypt (from the Town Hall) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPOdbAujDo > > Thanks to you all for thought-provoking meetings. In the next few days I > will embed all of the clips and add some ruminations and documents on the > waves blog-- > > stay tuned. > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 23 00:32:48 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:32:48 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <201103221416.p2MEGdj1007004@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440918012@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments have seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on it really combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the logic behind that often doesn't hold up. > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > Andrew A. Adams > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:17 AM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx > > > I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement > > cost= s. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why > > would you t= hink they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx > > where they would be = caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a > > child molester is with an x= xx domain. Does anyone thing they are > going to register child-molester.xxx? > > > > The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are > > as dif= ferent as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking > > for child mole= ster I would think that something like .info, which > > spammers seem to like, = would be the place to go and it would only be > > promoted withing the group. A= .xxx is like inviting the cops to your > house. > > > > So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money. > > > > The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming > > the = "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a > > slippery sl= ope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist > > (Atheist) immoral? In man= y countries I would be executed for my > > non-belief because I choose reality = first. > > Will the income stream from .xxx be put towards general efforts to > attacking the availability of sex abuse images online, not just within > .xxx? Or is it proposed that it is only within .xxx that this activity > will take place? > > > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy > Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Wed Mar 23 00:59:22 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:59:22 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440918012@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D8937DA.5010903@churchofreality.org> So it's really a sin tax. We could tax .gambling to fun probability mathematics education in high school. We could tax .prostitution to fund abstinence education. Would we tax .atheist to fund religious education or tax .god to fund science education? I'm just raising the question if the purpose of ICANN is to be in the morality tax business. I personally don't like morality taxes. I used to live in San Francisco where I committed the immoral act of owning a car. San Francisco looks down on car owners as sinners the way non-smokers look at smokers. That's just kind of something I find annoying, unless of course I'm the one who gets to decide who has to pay the sin taxes. (not me!) Getting back on track. If ICANN gets into the sin tax business then that's mission creep. It leads to creeping into law enforcement, moral police, things that ICANN should not be doing. Granted someone needs to protect children from predators but .xxx has nothing to do with it. And it's logically inconsistent. porn.xxx - tax porn.com - no tax Now - if there were a TLD where to join the TLD requires special processing - like .lawyer might require validating that you are a member of the bar - then the cost of doing that should be included in the domain. But in my mind he cost has to be directly connected to the TLD. And - that is the point I'm trying to make. On 3/22/2011 4:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments have seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on it really combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the logic behind that often doesn't hold up. > >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy >> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Wed Mar 23 01:17:26 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:17:26 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8937DA.5010903@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) Dan PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent costs being imposed on themselves. So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. On Tue, March 22, 2011 4:59 pm, Marc Perkel wrote: > So it's really a sin tax. > > We could tax .gambling to fun probability mathematics education in high > school. > We could tax .prostitution to fund abstinence education. > Would we tax .atheist to fund religious education or tax .god to fund > science education? > > I'm just raising the question if the purpose of ICANN is to be in the > morality tax business. > > I personally don't like morality taxes. I used to live in San Francisco > where I committed the immoral act of owning a car. San Francisco looks > down on car owners as sinners the way non-smokers look at smokers. > That's just kind of something I find annoying, unless of course I'm the > one who gets to decide who has to pay the sin taxes. (not me!) > > Getting back on track. If ICANN gets into the sin tax business then > that's mission creep. It leads to creeping into law enforcement, moral > police, things that ICANN should not be doing. > > Granted someone needs to protect children from predators but .xxx has > nothing to do with it. And it's logically inconsistent. > > porn.xxx - tax > porn.com - no tax > > Now - if there were a TLD where to join the TLD requires special > processing - like .lawyer might require validating that you are a member > of the bar - then the cost of doing that should be included in the > domain. But in my mind he cost has to be directly connected to the TLD. > > And - that is the point I'm trying to make. > > On 3/22/2011 4:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on >> child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments >> have seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on >> it really combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the >> logic behind that often doesn't hold up. >> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy >>> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > From bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Wed Mar 23 02:18:57 2011 From: bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:18:57 -0400 Subject: LEAs and Internet governance institutions (was: How to achieve more community involvement in selecting topics at ICANN meetings & speakers?) Message-ID: I'd like to point out that the close interaction that Robin points out between LEAs and Internet governance institutions is not limited to ICANN. Please see this recent article examining the flourishing relationship between LEAs and the Regional Internet Registries < http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110319_2nd_annual_ripe_ncc_lea_meeting_cooperation_unfolds/> Of course, this is not all doom and gloom. It is encouraging to hear that LEAs are being told to participate in the "bottom up" policy making processes of the RIRs. However, as Robin notes, agenda setting and framing of policy debates are just as important. Any objective, truly "multistakeholder" Internet governance institution will ensure all sides are represented. Best, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > We need more community involvement in the planning of the discussions / > meetings held during the various ICANN weeks. Besides the usual > Board/AC/SO/ Constituency meetings held during ICANN weeks, the ICANN staff > unilaterally plan a number of sessions that should require input from the > community. > > For example, last week in SF's ICANN meeting there was a 90 minute session > on "DNS Abuse" in which ICANN staff unilaterally organized for a series of > law enforcement officials to provide a "parade of horribles" in order to > justify less consumer privacy protections at ICANN. > > When I asked ICANN staff why there wasn't any privacy experts speaking > during the public session, the staff member said they "assumed privacy was > not an issue" so did not think to invite any. Obviously this is a problem. > ICANN staff unilaterally deciding what the discussions topics are, what the > important issues are, how to present them, what speakers to invite, and what > perspectives get heard. The way these discussions are framed obviously > plays a key role in steering the direction of the policy development > process. > > All of us Internet users are paying for ICANN, we really should have more > of a say in how it is run and the substance of the discussions planned > during ICANN week is a good place to start. These discussions are a place > where the community should frame the discussion and set the topics, while > staff merely facilitate the wishes of the community. It feels too much like > the the tail is wagging the dog at ICANN. > > How can we the community begin to wrestle some control away from the staff > in terms of how topics are selected and how discussions are organized during > these meetings? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfernandes at CGI.BR Wed Mar 23 02:35:21 2011 From: mfernandes at CGI.BR (Marcelo Fernandes Costa) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:35:21 -0300 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco Message-ID: <20110322223521.78953fhd42rmp9i1@mail.cgi.br> Hi friends, As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in San Francisco. When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to pay my debt with some videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the week all the photos will be on Flickr. Lucky in life to everyone! Marcelo Fernandes From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Wed Mar 23 04:06:09 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:06:09 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8963A1.9010504@gmail.com> Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes (that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the act of doing so. Nicolas On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) > > That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs > on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. > > I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART > and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a > price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has > networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. > > Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) > > Dan > > PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand > smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to > breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of > this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent > costs being imposed on themselves. > > So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often > offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... > > From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Wed Mar 23 04:49:38 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:49:38 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8963A1.9010504@gmail.com> Message-ID: Taxes don't cover all externalities. :-) When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs, which I really don't care for, personally. It's a real and tangible cost to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual occurrence. Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not about morality. I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and restaurants. 'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI. I really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises before I finish whatever I'm doing there. If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's house) I wouldn't care at all. This is not a moral issue for me about the smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be attacked as such. I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit? Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but >i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many >externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes >(that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... > >I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me >wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the >act of doing so. > >Nicolas > >On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >> You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) >> >> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs >> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. >> >> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART >> and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a >> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has >> networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. >> >> Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) >> >> Dan >> >> PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand >> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to >> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of >> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent >> costs being imposed on themselves. >> >> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often >> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... >> >> From avri at LTU.SE Wed Mar 23 06:34:48 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:34:48 +0100 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8937DA.5010903@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: On 23 Mar 2011, at 00:59, Marc Perkel wrote: > So it's really a sin tax. why do you not believe in sin taxes. assuming you accept the idea of taxes in general, why should we who want to engage in behavior that is sometimes harmful and sometimes has a social cost (smoking, drinking, drugs, driving gas guzzlers, eating pastry etc) all things that are not necessary for life pay a little extra for the fun? a. From mueller at SYR.EDU Wed Mar 23 15:23:08 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:23:08 -0400 Subject: FW: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979962@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979964@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> No, it's not a sin tax. The price is not set by ICANN or the GAC but by the registry operator. There are some "sin regulations" imposed on ICM by GAC-ICANN, though, which add to costs. But as noted, no adult site is required to register there. > -----Original Message----- > > So it's really a sin tax. > > We could tax .gambling to fun probability mathematics education in high > school. > We could tax .prostitution to fund abstinence education. > Would we tax .atheist to fund religious education or tax .god to fund > science education? > > I'm just raising the question if the purpose of ICANN is to be in the > morality tax business. > > I personally don't like morality taxes. I used to live in San Francisco > where I committed the immoral act of owning a car. San Francisco looks > down on car owners as sinners the way non-smokers look at smokers. > That's just kind of something I find annoying, unless of course I'm the > one who gets to decide who has to pay the sin taxes. (not me!) > > Getting back on track. If ICANN gets into the sin tax business then > that's mission creep. It leads to creeping into law enforcement, moral > police, things that ICANN should not be doing. > > Granted someone needs to protect children from predators but .xxx has > nothing to do with it. And it's logically inconsistent. > > porn.xxx - tax > porn.com - no tax > > Now - if there were a TLD where to join the TLD requires special > processing - like .lawyer might require validating that you are a member > of the bar - then the cost of doing that should be included in the > domain. But in my mind he cost has to be directly connected to the TLD. > > And - that is the point I'm trying to make. > > On 3/22/2011 4:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > It's supposed to donate to general foundations/organizations working on > child abuse. But really that's mostly posturing of course; governments have > seized on regulating the .xxx domain as if putting requirements on it really > combats the more serious problems. As Perkel pointed out, the logic behind > that often doesn't hold up. > > > >> > >> -- > >> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp > >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy > >> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 23 15:39:07 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:39:07 -0300 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco In-Reply-To: <20110322223521.78953fhd42rmp9i1@mail.cgi.br> Message-ID: <4D8A060B.9090907@cafonso.ca> This is real fun, but where is the audiocast of our Tuesday meetings? []s fraternos --c.a. On 03/22/2011 10:35 PM, Marcelo Fernandes Costa wrote: > Hi friends, > > As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in San > Francisco. > > When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to > pay my debt with some videos > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the > week all the photos will be on Flickr. > > Lucky in life to everyone! > > Marcelo Fernandes > From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Wed Mar 23 15:46:09 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:46:09 -0700 Subject: Why sin taxes are a sin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8A07B1.1060202@churchofreality.org> On 3/22/2011 10:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 23 Mar 2011, at 00:59, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> So it's really a sin tax. > > why do you not believe in sin taxes. > > assuming you accept the idea of taxes in general, why should we who want to engage in behavior that is sometimes harmful and sometimes has a social cost (smoking, drinking, drugs, driving gas guzzlers, eating pastry etc) all things that are not necessary for life pay a little extra for the fun? > > > a. > OK - I'm glad you asked that question. Why am I against sin taxes? I'll address it in two parts, what is sin - and even if something is sin that taxing it isn't a good idea. At issue is the .xxx TLD. As we know .xxx is something like porn or adult themed information dealing with sex. Is sex sin? With the exception of certain high tech solution we all exist because of sex. Without sex there would be no human race. Some might argue that .xxx type sex (porn) is different that virgin marriage monogamy sex but it's the same principle. Some people just get turned on by different things. If humanity had limited itself to virgin marriage monogamy reproduction then humanity would have gone extinct and none of us would be here having this discussion. I think it could probably be proved mathematically that every one of us has an ancestor born out of wedlock. So - I'm going to make a universal moral assumption: To exist is better than to be extinct. That's what I'm asking you to accept on faith. Thus since sex and .xxx activity is necessary for humanity to exist then it cannot be immoral - or sin. Now for the second part of my argument. Suppose we all agree that smoking cigarettes is a sin. There may be some smokers in the group who don't agree but we'll ignore it for now. Should it be subject to sin taxes? Increasing the price of cigarettes might marginally reduce the number of smokers but smoking is addictive and the addicts just have to pay more. This makes them poorer and more desperate, increases stress, might deprive them of money they might otherwise feed their children with, go to the doctor, or some other productive activity. It also increases crime as more people need to steal to get cigarette money. Then you get government getting hooked on cigarette income. So when society evolves away from cigarettes governments start noticing a shortfall in revenue which creates an incentive against anti-smoking legislation that works. Tobacco money is more addictive than tobacco. A real solution to smoking would be for the DEA to declare cigarettes a Schedule II drug, remove it completely from retail sales, and only allow smokers to get cigarettes from a pharmacy with a doctor's prescription. Then you'll see a serious reduction in smoking. I'll throw in a third example. San Francisco's sin of driving a car. The environmentalist sins. This too is an artificial sin because 99% of everything coming into San Fran comes in on a car or a truck. So those who walk get all their stuff from those who drive. If you really want to address the energy/carbon/resources/destroying the eerth problem then you have to focus on population control. There are too many people on the planet so even if you cut everyone's footprint in half, if the population doubles you gain nothing. OTOH, if I buy a poor pregnant teenager an abortion, I should get to drive a Hummer because that abortion saved more carbon than the Hummer would ever produce. Maybe we should rethink cannibalism as a way to fight global warming? Hmmmm .... Anyhow - my point - embrace reality - not fake solutions that sound politically correct but stuff that actually works. If we embrace fake solution that .xxx is immoral and we're going to alter the morality of it by taxing it and using it to prevent child porn on a TLD that wouldn't have child porn. Logically if you were going to do that then tax .com because that's where the porn is now. If we start down that path then when law enforcement wants a back door into my spam filtering server so that they can catch criminals the precedent for ICANN becoming the moral police has already been set. I'm making the slippery slope argument here. From k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK Wed Mar 23 15:58:39 2011 From: k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:58:39 +0000 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco In-Reply-To: <4D8A060B.9090907@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I have asked Glen for it and I am waiting for the MP3 of Tuesday's meeting. KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Law Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Τετάρτη, 23 Μαρτίου 2011 2:39 μμ To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Videos and pics of San Francisco This is real fun, but where is the audiocast of our Tuesday meetings? []s fraternos --c.a. On 03/22/2011 10:35 PM, Marcelo Fernandes Costa wrote: > Hi friends, > > As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in > San Francisco. > > When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to > pay my debt with some videos > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the > week all the photos will be on Flickr. > > Lucky in life to everyone! > > Marcelo Fernandes > From ca at CAFONSO.CA Wed Mar 23 16:25:53 2011 From: ca at CAFONSO.CA (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:25:53 -0300 Subject: Videos and pics of San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8A1101.9030109@cafonso.ca> Excellent! Thx, Konstantinos! --c.a. On 03/23/2011 11:58 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > I have asked Glen for it and I am waiting for the MP3 of Tuesday's meeting. > > KK > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > > Law Lecturer, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses > Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law > University of Strathclyde, > The Law School, > Graham Hills building, > 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 > Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 > Website: www.komaitis.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Τετάρτη, 23 Μαρτίου 2011 2:39 μμ > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: Videos and pics of San Francisco > > This is real fun, but where is the audiocast of our Tuesday meetings? > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 03/22/2011 10:35 PM, Marcelo Fernandes Costa wrote: >> Hi friends, >> >> As I promise to Bill Drake, I'll share my pictures of our meeting in >> San Francisco. >> >> When I got home I realizes that I'm full of commitments. I'll start to >> pay my debt with some videos >> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDUCRPvQL4Q), but until the end of the >> week all the photos will be on Flickr. >> >> Lucky in life to everyone! >> >> Marcelo Fernandes >> > From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Thu Mar 24 07:05:00 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:05:00 -0700 Subject: Thanks to the NCUC crew for the success of NCUC@ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global Public Interest Message-ID: <9E1392B1-A71C-43A1-96F9-57B929546944@ipjustice.org> I wanted to thank everyone in NCUC who helped to make our recent conference in SF a great success! We've received lots of positive feedback on it from all parts of the community. I personally received much of the public credit for the event's success, BUT really it was a TEAM effort of many NCUC members -- and the credit properly goes to the entire constituency. In particular, we should thank all the session chairs for developing such solid substantive sessions (Milton, Bill, Konstantinos, Wendy, Katitza) and also Patrick Reilly, Nada Miljkovic and the IP Society for the webcast. (We should have the audio-video archive of the event posted soon). And we owe an enormous thanks to Brenden (aka "the Warlock") for operating the Adobe Connect and facilitating all sorts of technical wizardry to make the event go off without a hitch. Thank you, all! Best, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org From gakuru at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 24 07:20:16 2011 From: gakuru at GMAIL.COM (Alex Gakuru) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:20:16 +0300 Subject: PDP-WT stakeholders comments deadline 1st April (next week) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Neuman, Jeff Date: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:23 AM Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] No Call this week or next - Status Check To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp at icann.org" All, Hope everyone had a safe an uneventful trip back from ICANN. Just writing to check in on the progress you and your stakeholder groups/constituencies are making on providing comments by April 1st (Next week). I would like to schedule our next call for Thursday April 7th at the regularly scheduled time. Hopefully by then, we will have all of our comments in and have had a few days to review them. Please come to that meeting prepared to discuss the comments. We have a short time to complete our work. Thanks! *Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy* 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 *Office:** *+1.571.434.5772 *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079 *Fax: * +1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman at neustar.biz */* www.neustar.biz Please note new address starting March 21, 2011: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Thu Mar 24 07:46:11 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:46:11 -0400 Subject: Thanks to the NCUC crew for the success of NCUC@ICANN: Internet Governance & the Global Public Interest In-Reply-To: <9E1392B1-A71C-43A1-96F9-57B929546944@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I have to admit I had my doubts about the extra effort involved beforehand, but the event was great- and I think it really enabled the NCUC to hit the ground running! j On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > I wanted to thank everyone in NCUC who helped to make our recent conference > in SF a great success! We've received lots of positive feedback on it from > all parts of the community. > > I personally received much of the public credit for the event's success, > BUT really it was a TEAM effort of many NCUC members -- and the credit > properly goes to the entire constituency. In particular, we should thank > all the session chairs for developing such solid substantive sessions > (Milton, Bill, Konstantinos, Wendy, Katitza) and also Patrick Reilly, Nada > Miljkovic and the IP Society for the webcast. (We should have the > audio-video archive of the event posted soon). > > And we owe an enormous thanks to Brenden (aka "the Warlock") for operating > the Adobe Connect and facilitating all sorts of technical wizardry to make > the event go off without a hitch. > > Thank you, all! > > Best, > Robin > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM Thu Mar 24 15:58:37 2011 From: nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM (Nicolas Adam) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:58:37 -0400 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D8B5C1D.5080105@gmail.com> By "taxes don't cover all externalities" and your related argument, you surely mean that "price" is not to be regarded as a good equivalence for all things "utility", and by extension, cost cannot be a good equivalence for all things externality. I will grant that i believe this to be true also. However, it is sometimes necessary to run with the postulate that price is a good indicator of value, and that costs should account for negative externalities. It would take a specially trained mind in the doctrines of the free market to contend that prices naturally reflect such things as negative externalities, but in the example at hand, we deal with taxes and so with a regulated price. The banning of smokes in restaurants, for example, is not about dealing with negative externalities in the sense that we usually ascribe this concept. I submit that in the example you provide, with a high tax on cigarettes, all externalities are meant to be covered, and if some are left unaccounted for, it can only be delt with by an increase in the degree in taxation and not by a change in the kind of regulation. A change in the kind of regulation does some good for your non-smoking humor, but it has nothing to do with taking negative externalities into account. As you so aptly stipulated, the medium overseeing such a change in the kind of regulation is power. If coupled with equity and a neutral moral stance, *and a desire to keep the strategy of individualizing negative externalities in the cost*, power would deal with complaints of non-smokers like yourself by creating both smoke-free zones and some free-of-smoke-free zones *in the same category of establishment*. If, as a public policy, an administration would say that 30% of restaurants in every restaurant category will hold a smoking permit (have them rotating every five years or some equivalent equitable mechanism), then and only then does this kind of regulation becomes devoid of the sin-factor. Nicolas On 22/03/2011 11:49 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > Taxes don't cover all externalities. :-) > > When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my > presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs, > which I really don't care for, personally. It's a real and tangible cost > to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual > occurrence. > > Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not > about morality. I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that > prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and > restaurants. 'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on > SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI. I > really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering > those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises > before I finish whatever I'm doing there. > > If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as > satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's > house) I wouldn't care at all. This is not a moral issue for me about the > smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are > physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be > attacked as such. > > I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit? > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > > > > At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >> Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but >> i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many >> externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes >> (that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... >> >> I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me >> wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the >> act of doing so. >> >> Nicolas >> >> On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >>> You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) >>> >>> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs >>> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. >>> >>> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART >>> and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a >>> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has >>> networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. >>> >>> Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand >>> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to >>> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of >>> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent >>> costs being imposed on themselves. >>> >>> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often >>> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... >>> >>> From aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET Thu Mar 24 23:27:07 2011 From: aelsadr at TELEMEDINT.NET (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:27:07 +0200 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002b01cbea72$a75f8ee0$f61eaca0$@net> Thanks for the draft Brenden. Here is the list of fellows from San Francisco I think might be interested to join NCUC: Lira Samykbaeva lira at gipi.kg – Kyrgyz Republic Pastor Peters Omoragbon nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com – Nigeria Behnam Esfahbod behnam at esfahbod.info – Iran Mohammad Thawabeh thawabeh at gmail.com – Jordan Salieu Taal salieu.taal at gmail.com – Gambia Richard Cheng richard at netmission.asia – Hong Kong Michelle Qinyan qinyanmichelle at gmail.com – Hong Kong Lira, Richard, and Michelle attended the first half of our constituency meeting and as far as I know from Richard, he already submitted his application to join NCUC. Peters Omoragbon expressed his intent to join NCUC after our participation at the Fellowship morning meeting. The NGO that he manages in Nigeria has also been an ALS with AFRALO since the Nairobi meeting where he attended his first ICANN meeting. May I suggest that when emailing this group, we draft a more customized and personal email addressing the fellows? That would make more sense to me considering that several of our members have already had a meeting with them; be it as brief as it was. As for President Clinton, I would guess that a more elaborate communiqué might be in order. We’ve already had our minute and a half with him. Perhaps it would now be prudent to include an outline of some of the issues NCUC is currently tackling, and why we think he might want to personally (or The Clinton Foundation) join NCUC’s ranks along with an attached copy of our charter for membership eligibility with the message we send him. What do you think? Thanks. Amr Elsadr M.D. Chief Operating Officer Tele-Med International http://www.telemedint.net Tel: +2(023)534-6098 Fax: +2(023)534-6029 From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:46 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Great Meeting at San Fran On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don’t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some information about who and what we are. Agree. And this need not be more than a simple one-page letter which I've started - http://piratepad.net/12wRNGqtR2 - that contains a call to action to join NCUC. Anyone should feel free to edit as they see fit. Should we try to follow up with any new potential members that we met in SF by end of next week? a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM Fri Mar 25 05:18:00 2011 From: dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:18:00 -0700 Subject: Tom Morris takes on xxx In-Reply-To: <4D8B5C1D.5080105@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, and that establishment of smoke-free zones is what I was talking about. If OTOH Marc is talking about actual taxing of cigarettes, that may be about external health effects (measured by health care costs) as opposed to the simple annoyance factor. In any case, I take a purely utilitarian view toward these policies, completely devoid of "moral" content. Which was really my point to Marc: not all policies are about morality, even if/when morality is sometimes used to sell the policies to a general public (which is indeed quite common, but that's driven by "what works" in public discourse as opposed to any intent to justify policy rationally -- I think it's useful to distinguish these things). Dan -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. At 10:58 AM -0400 3/24/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >By "taxes don't cover all externalities" and your related argument, you >surely mean that "price" is not to be regarded as a good equivalence for >all things "utility", and by extension, cost cannot be a good >equivalence for all things externality. > >I will grant that i believe this to be true also. However, it is >sometimes necessary to run with the postulate that price is a good >indicator of value, and that costs should account for negative >externalities. It would take a specially trained mind in the doctrines >of the free market to contend that prices naturally reflect such things >as negative externalities, but in the example at hand, we deal with >taxes and so with a regulated price. > >The banning of smokes in restaurants, for example, is not about dealing >with negative externalities in the sense that we usually ascribe this >concept. I submit that in the example you provide, with a high tax on >cigarettes, all externalities are meant to be covered, and if some are >left unaccounted for, it can only be delt with by an increase in the >degree in taxation and not by a change in the kind of regulation. A >change in the kind of regulation does some good for your non-smoking >humor, but it has nothing to do with taking negative externalities into >account. > >As you so aptly stipulated, the medium overseeing such a change in the >kind of regulation is power. If coupled with equity and a neutral moral >stance, *and a desire to keep the strategy of individualizing negative >externalities in the cost*, power would deal with complaints of >non-smokers like yourself by creating both smoke-free zones and some >free-of-smoke-free zones *in the same category of establishment*. If, as >a public policy, an administration would say that 30% of restaurants in >every restaurant category will hold a smoking permit (have them rotating >every five years or some equivalent equitable mechanism), then and only >then does this kind of regulation becomes devoid of the sin-factor. > >Nicolas > >On 22/03/2011 11:49 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >> Taxes don't cover all externalities. :-) >> >> When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my >> presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs, >> which I really don't care for, personally. It's a real and tangible cost >> to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual >> occurrence. >> >> Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not >> about morality. I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that >> prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and >> restaurants. 'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on >> SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI. I >> really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering >> those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises >> before I finish whatever I'm doing there. >> >> If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as >> satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's >> house) I wouldn't care at all. This is not a moral issue for me about the >> smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are >> physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be >> attacked as such. >> >> I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit? >> >> Dan >> >> >> -- >> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do >> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. >> >> >> >> At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote: >>> Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but >>> i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many >>> externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes >>> (that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) .... >>> >>> I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me >>> wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the >>> act of doing so. >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: >>>> You had me until you went for the car in SF. ;-) >>>> >>>> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs >>>> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others. >>>> >>>> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART >>>> and ride in. There's just no room for all those cars. Congestion has a >>>> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has >>>> networking benefits). It's all trade-offs. >>>> >>>> Not *everything* is about religion... ;-) >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> PS: As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand >>>> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to >>>> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away). So part of >>>> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent >>>> costs being imposed on themselves. >>>> >>>> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often >>>> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies... >>>> >>>> From william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH Fri Mar 25 11:09:07 2011 From: william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH (William Drake) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:09:07 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Please join NOW remotely (25.03.2011) : The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things Message-ID: Hi Forgot to mention this to NC, but in case anyone is interested… Avri and I are here in Leipzig for this discussion, which has some bearing on DNS/ICANN issues. Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: "sandra hoferichter" > Date: March 25, 2011 9:49:35 AM GMT+01:00 > To: > Subject: [governance] Please join NOW remotely (25.03.2011) : The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "sandra hoferichter" > > The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things > EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in cooperation with the > annual meeting of the IGF Dynamic coalition of the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIoT) > Leipzig, Germany, March 24-25, 2011 > Please find the programme here the times refers to CET (UTC+1h) > http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html > > As we are testing new equipment, we hope the audio will be sufficient- if not please apologise. > > Topic: The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things > Date: Friday, March 25, 2011 > Time: 9:43 am, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) > Meeting Number: 844 296 311 > Meeting Password: leipzig > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW=8cb857013401151e02&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D > > 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. > 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: leipzig > 4. Click "Join". > 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. > > To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW=8cb857013401151e02&ORT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the audio conference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > Call-in toll number (UK): (0)20 700 51000 > > Access code:844 296 311 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > info at hoferichter.eu > > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > CCP:+02070051000x844296311# > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG Fri Mar 25 18:49:13 2011 From: robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:49:13 -0700 Subject: Great Meeting at San Fran In-Reply-To: <002b01cbea72$a75f8ee0$f61eaca0$@net> Message-ID: <30155CE6-EB77-454B-8A4D-9E29928601A5@ipjustice.org> Dear Amr, This is really terrific - thank you! What an impressive group of fellows this is - we will be lucky to have their views in the constituency. I like the idea of a formal letter to address the fellows and introduce NCUC to them. Thank you, Robin On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks for the draft Brenden. Here is the list of fellows from San Francisco I think might be interested to join NCUC: > > Lira Samykbaeva lira at gipi.kg – Kyrgyz Republic > Pastor Peters Omoragbon nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com – Nigeria > Behnam Esfahbod behnam at esfahbod.info – Iran > Mohammad Thawabeh thawabeh at gmail.com – Jordan > Salieu Taal salieu.taal at gmail.com – Gambia > Richard Cheng richard at netmission.asia – Hong Kong > Michelle Qinyan qinyanmichelle at gmail.com – Hong Kong > > Lira, Richard, and Michelle attended the first half of our constituency meeting and as far as I know from Richard, he already submitted his application to join NCUC. Peters Omoragbon expressed his intent to join NCUC after our participation at the Fellowship morning meeting. The NGO that he manages in Nigeria has also been an ALS with AFRALO since the Nairobi meeting where he attended his first ICANN meeting. > > May I suggest that when emailing this group, we draft a more customized and personal email addressing the fellows? That would make more sense to me considering that several of our members have already had a meeting with them; be it as brief as it was. > > As for President Clinton, I would guess that a more elaborate communiqué might be in order. We’ve already had our minute and a half with him. Perhaps it would now be prudent to include an outline of some of the issues NCUC is currently tackling, and why we think he might want to personally (or The Clinton Foundation) join NCUC’s ranks along with an attached copy of our charter for membership eligibility with the message we send him. What do you think? > > Thanks. > > Amr Elsadr M.D. > Chief Operating Officer > Tele-Med International > http://www.telemedint.net > Tel: +2(023)534-6098 > Fax: +2(023)534-6029 > > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:46 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: Great Meeting at San Fran > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 22 Mar 2011, at 12:09, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > And finally, I thought that I should put it on the record that when I met President Clinton, I took the time to speak with him (although I was instructed not to) and told him that we need help in non-commercial and that it would be great if he joined (although don’t hold your breath that he will). I hope this meets with general approval. > > > I think this is great. But perhaps we should follow it up with some information about who and what we are. > > > Agree. And this need not be more than a simple one-page letter which I've started - http://piratepad.net/12wRNGqtR2 - that contains a call to action to join NCUC. Anyone should feel free to edit as they see fit. Should we try to follow up with any new potential members that we met in SF by end of next week? > > > > a. > > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM Sat Mar 26 14:16:51 2011 From: deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM (DeeDee Halleck) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:16:51 -0400 Subject: privacy issues Message-ID: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/25/microsoft-switches-o.html *Microsoft switches off privacy for Hotmail users in war-torn and repressive states *Cory Doctorow at 11:36 PM Fri For reasons unknown, Microsoft has changed the settings on Hotmail to disable HTTPS for users in several countries including Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Hotmail users in those countries can now be readily spied upon by ISPs and their governments. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some good perspective: Microsoft debuted the always-use-HTTPS feature for Hotmail in December of 2010, in order to give users the option of always encrypting their webmail traffic and protecting their sensitive communications from malicious hackers using tools such as Firesheep, and hostile governments eavesdropping on journalists and activists. For Microsoft to take such an enormous step backwards-- undermining the security of Hotmail users in countries where freedom of expression is under attack and secure communication is especially important--is deeply disturbing. We hope that this counterproductive and potentially dangerous move is merely an error that Microsoft will swiftly correct. The good news is that the fix is very easy. Hotmail users in the affected countries can turn the always-use-HTTPS feature back on by changing the country in their profile to any of the countries in which this feature has not been disabled, such as the United States, Germany, France, Israel, or Turkey. Hotmail users who browse the web with Firefox may force the use of HTTPS by default--while using any Hotmail location setting--by installing the HTTPS Everywhere Firefox plug-in. Microsoft Shuts off HTTPS in Hotmail for Over a Dozen Countries Previously: - EFF's latest HTTPS Everywhere plugin helps protect against ... - -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Sun Mar 27 03:27:08 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:27:08 +0800 Subject: privacy issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Microsoft are saying this was a bug, not a deliberate decision, and only effected the ability to switch to HTTPS - users who had already switched their settings did not have it turned off. So, weird and suspicious, but not much to do done until MS work out the cause. Cheers David From dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU Wed Mar 30 11:14:23 2011 From: dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU (David Cake) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:14:23 +0800 Subject: SSR Issues List Message-ID: The Security Stability and Resiliency team put out a list of issues a few weeks ago (prior to San Francisco), public comments close in about a week. if there is a particular issues you think the SSR team should (or should not be) looking at, this is your chance, and we'd appreciate comments. http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues Regards David From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Thu Mar 31 07:51:06 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:51:06 -0700 Subject: Are domain queries public? Message-ID: <4D94164A.5060300@churchofreality.org> Sometimes I get on OpenSRS (Tucows) and look up a domain name to find it available. A few days later someone registers the domain name. I don't think it's a coincidence. Are these queries public? From marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG Thu Mar 31 17:23:30 2011 From: marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG (Marc Perkel) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:23:30 -0700 Subject: Domain Name Front Running Message-ID: <4D949C72.70408@churchofreality.org> It looks like it has a name. There appears to be some mechanism where if I look up a non-existent domain that lookup is somehow exposed to people who then register the domain if I don't register it immediately. The town of Gilroy is starting a farmers market. A few weeks ago I looked up GilroyFarmersMarket.com and it was available. I come back two weeks later and it's taken. Who is tracking this? How do third parties know that I looked up that domain? From avri at LTU.SE Thu Mar 31 20:35:58 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:35:58 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion Message-ID: <4836C646-670F-45BC-9E7F-F64D5626FD5C@ltu.se> Hi, Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion meeting. A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can be found at: http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd Please fill it out and please attend if you can. thanks a. From asterling at AAMC.ORG Thu Mar 31 20:41:37 2011 From: asterling at AAMC.ORG (Amber Sterling) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:41:37 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion In-Reply-To: A<4836C646-670F-45BC-9E7F-F64D5626FD5C@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4C757120A2B9574DBB39C286E5980F8907D3B9C1@EVS2.adm.aamc.org> Hi Avri, What day is the meeting? The blurb says April 7th and the calendar says April 5th. Thanks, Amber Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:36 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion Hi, Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion meeting. A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can be found at: http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd Please fill it out and please attend if you can. thanks a. From avri at LTU.SE Thu Mar 31 20:46:54 2011 From: avri at LTU.SE (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:46:54 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion In-Reply-To: <4C757120A2B9574DBB39C286E5980F8907D3B9C1@EVS2.adm.aamc.org> Message-ID: <2D82704B-2E0F-4D69-B1AE-D1960EA5BBF2@ltu.se> Hi, I have clarified the text a little. The NCSG meeting is April 5 in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting which is April 7. Sorry for any confusion. a. On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:41, Amber Sterling wrote: > Hi Avri, > > What day is the meeting? The blurb says April 7th and the calendar says > April 5th. > > Thanks, > Amber > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:36 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion > > Hi, > > Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion > meeting. > > A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can > be found at: > > http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd > > Please fill it out and please attend if you can. > > thanks > > a. > From asterling at AAMC.ORG Thu Mar 31 20:49:28 2011 From: asterling at AAMC.ORG (Amber Sterling) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:49:28 -0400 Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion In-Reply-To: A<2D82704B-2E0F-4D69-B1AE-D1960EA5BBF2@ltu.se> Message-ID: <4C757120A2B9574DBB39C286E5980F8907D3B9CF@EVS2.adm.aamc.org> Thanks for clarifying. Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:47 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion Hi, I have clarified the text a little. The NCSG meeting is April 5 in preparation for the GNSO Council meeting which is April 7. Sorry for any confusion. a. On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:41, Amber Sterling wrote: > Hi Avri, > > What day is the meeting? The blurb says April 7th and the calendar says > April 5th. > > Thanks, > Amber > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of > Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:36 PM > To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Pre GNSO Council meeting NCSG Open Policy discussion > > Hi, > > Debra Hughes will be chairing the next CSg Open policy discussion > meeting. > > A poll for the best time within her possible times for the meeting can > be found at: > > http://doodle.com/f3paypmu3tsi5ivd > > Please fill it out and please attend if you can. > > thanks > > a. > From mueller at SYR.EDU Tue Mar 1 01:28:48 2011 From: mueller at SYR.EDU (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:28:48 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <594A0DB1-758B-4D44-85C4-31B187284CF2@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917ACA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain "concerns." But that was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you saw/heard/thought. From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:52 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now Hi Just a quick reminder that this much anticipated meeting is happening now and continues tomorrow. The GAC's "scorecard" of advice on new gTLD issues, staff background papers, webcast, scribe text and Adobe Connect are all at http://meetings.icann.org/board-gac-spring11. There's also a twitter feed #ICANN. We observers have no speaking rights in the room, but if any members have particular issues/questions they'd like to raise in other contexts feel free. We're currently talking about root scaling... Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at PUNKCAST.COM Tue Mar 1 01:52:14 2011 From: joly at PUNKCAST.COM (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:52:14 -0500 Subject: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917ACA@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: scribe notes: http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for > about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression > was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of > relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating > debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not > contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not > pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem > of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain “concerns.” But that > was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you > saw/heard/thought. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com   VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------