[At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Danny and all my friends,

  I think in order to make some progress identifying users
main concerns, and listing them would be a good first start.
So from our members anyway, here is a short list:

1.) Solving the growing spam problem.
2.) Means and methods of addressing phishing
3.) Personal privacy on the net.


Danny Younger wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  I would be sympathetic with
> your position regarding weighted support for the
> end-user community if it could be demonstrated that
> ALAC reps in other regions have been busy formulating
> policy to deal with non-registrant end-user concerns
> that theoretically could take precedence over current
> registrant concerns... but this hasn't happened.
>
> What we have instead is a bunch of folk who by dint of
> their Civil Society involvement are now being paid to
> attend ICANN sessions, folk that seem to have no real
> interest in anything other than networking and getting
> together for the next IGF session.
>
> These aren't the representatives of "the people".
> They don't speak for the at-large as do the voices on
> Slashdot, the voices in the tech blogs, or the
> complainants in the public forums.  At the ALAC helm
> we tend to find the ivory tower crowd that would
> rather spend their time theorizing about Internet
> Governance than actually dealing with immediate
> problems in the DNS.
>
> Just have a look through the Euralo discussion list
> and see if you can find a single policy initiative
> pursued in the last twelve months.  You won't.  That
> discussion list (and others) are a wasteland bereft of
> any real work or attention to either registrant or
> non-registrant concerns.
>
> Those that are getting a free ride are offering up no
> more than a token amount of work and our region
> suffers as a consequence.
>
> If you look at the track record of the SSAC, you can
> point to a number of significant achievements --
> documents on timely issues emerge on a frequent basis.
>  Since LA we have seen no less than five serious
> documents prepared:  on WHOIS and spamming, on
> fast-flux, on front-running, on DNSSEC.
>
> Where is the ALAC equivalent?  Where is the
> well-considered advice?  Perhaps some consider waiting
> until the last day of the JPA comment period before
> soliciting advice from constituent orgs to be an
> appropriate way of handling things... I don't...  but
> it demonstrates how the ALAC currently handles things
> -- irresponsibly and at the last minute.
>
> This is no longer acceptable.  After six years of this
> BS so far, how much longer can we patiently sit back
> listening to the refrain that "these are new people
> and we have to give them time"?
>
> The structure is flawed and the current dynamic is
> failing to produce results.  If our region is not to
> be protected in the midst of this morass, then we
> should scrap the ALAC in its entirety or arrive at a
> weighted formula that will serve to better protect our
> own interests.
>
> regards,
> Danny
>
> --- Michael Maranda <mm at michaelmaranda.net> wrote:
>
> > I am sympathetic to part of the argument here, but
> > not the entirety.
> > Namely, I dont see At Large as exclusively about
> > those participating in
> > domain registration market.  The end-users (and
> > potential end users) are the
> > widest possible set (i.e. everybody) under at-large.
> >  How then does the math
> > of apportionment break down then?
> >
> > Nonetheless - organizing the concerns of those who
> > do or might wish to
> > register a domain - should be one of our goals.  How
> > best to achieve that?
> > It's generally those who find themselves in an
> > unfortunate situation that
> > find themselves motivated to do something but with
> > no obvious remedy.  I
> > assume some of the ALSs (perhaps a small few) may be
> > documenting these
> > complaints.  I suggest that it would be a great
> > service to have some sort of
> > clearinghouse on complaints (if one is not in
> > existence - and if one already
> > does - make it globally useful) and use At-Large
> > leverage to make it
> > meaningful for end-users.
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger
> > <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Evan,
> > >
> > > I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't
> > > working and what can be done to correct the
> > situation.
> > >
> > > Let's start by having a look at the worldwide
> > > distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over
> > which
> > > ICANN exerts policy control).
> > >
> > > com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000
> > > registrations.  Our region holds 65,000,000 of
> > those
> > > registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region
> > has
> > > only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC --
> > a
> > > situation which does little to protect our
> > interests.
> > >
> > > So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region
> > > feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC
> > > members could care less as they tend to live
> > mostly in
> > > the ccTLD world.
> > >
> > > Why are we at this point?  Why is it that our
> > region
> > > doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the
> > ALAC?
> > >  This is purely based on a distribution that
> > reflects
> > > "political correctness" moreso than the realities
> > of
> > > the marketplace.  That may be acceptable to civil
> > > society types that only comment on the lists as
> > the
> > > time approaches for another IGF session; it's not
> > > acceptable to most North Americans that continue
> > to be
> > > affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and
> > who
> > > are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver
> > results.
> > >
> > > The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend
> > the
> > > user interest; instead, they have chosen to
> > tacitly
> > > discriminate against North Americans by ignoring
> > their
> > > immediate and ongoing concerns.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt
> > > Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with
> > > transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC
> > will
> > > continue to stumble along and produce statements
> > on
> > > ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead
> > of
> > > dealing with the serious problems at hand.
> > >
> > > It's time for not only an operational overhaul of
> > the
> > > ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a
> > > structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and
> > > assigns representation that reflects actual
> > current
> > > worldwide participation in the DNS.  Weighted
> > voting
> > > is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new
> > > reality in the ALAC.
> > >
> > > If that means that North America will be assigned
> > 66
> > > percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time
> > --
> > > so be it.  At some point soon the balance will
> > switch
> > > to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the
> > > weighting to be changed to relect the new mix.
> > >
> > > The politically correct distribution that we
> > suffer
> > > under has not worked out.  A change is most
> > certainly
> > > in order.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> > >
> >
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ALAC mailing list
> > > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >
> > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827