[At-Large] Accuracy of WhoIs?

Mon Apr 7 17:50:22 EDT 2008

I agree with you and with everyone else that WHOIS should give accurate
information. The thing is that the means to get such information en quite
difficult. Suppose that everyone that wants a domain name had to go in
person to the registrar's office to certify their data. I´m not going to
tell all the inconvenient that it will cause because they are so obvious. 

I agree that something has to be done, I just can´t imagine yet the proper
way to do it

José Ovidio Salgueiro A.
jsalgueiro at cantv.net

-----Mensaje original-----
De: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Yassin Mshana
Enviado el: lunes, 07 de abril de 2008 04:26 p.m.
Para: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] Accuracy of WhoIs?

I have followed the discussion thread and do respect all views aired in this
forum. However, I am disturbed by the  way professionalism and ethics are
taken lightly. IMHO, I think that WhoIs? should give accurate information.
Why? Taking that analogy of "Yellow Pages" can you imagine how the scenario
would be if there were multiple inaccurate Yellow Pages in one city? 

It is presumed and expected that the Directory(ies) should contain accurate
information and should be transparent enough to ensure that they serves the
intended purpose to the User; I wonder why should one seek to be annonymous
- is being annonynmous ethical? Iam not sure. It is like having an business
whereby the ownership is fixtituous.......

My humble opinon.

Yassin (my true name) > From: alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject:
ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16> To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon,
7 Apr 2008 13:15:36 -0400> > Send ALAC mailing list submissions to>
alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World
Wide Web, visit>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to>
alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > You can reach the person managing
the list at> alac-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > When replying, please
edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of ALAC
digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input
Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Blogs.pn)>
2. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from
ALAC to the ICANN Board (Jeffrey A. Williams)> 3. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community
Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
(Jeffrey A. Williams)> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------> >
Message: 1> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:45:00 -0400> From: "Blogs.pn"
<namecritic at blogs.pn>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input
Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To:
<derek at aa419.org>, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at seltzer.com>> Cc:
alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID:
<013701c898ce$ba502a80$0301a8c0 at namecritic>> Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";> reply-type=original> > I say leave privacy
as an option for each individual user and enforce the > accuracy of the
information either way.> > Chris McElroy> > > ----- Original Message ----- >
From: "Derek Smythe" <derek at aa419.org>> To: "Wendy Seltzer"
<wendy at seltzer.com>> Cc: <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Sent: Sunday, April
06, 2008 6:29 PM> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input
Requested on Two Draft > Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> > > > Wen!
 dy Seltz
er wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is
the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> > ...> >
...> >>> >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very>
>> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs>
>> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as>
>> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to>
>> make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already>
>> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >>
respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >>
in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >>
comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >>
planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >>
related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >>
on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >>> > Wendy> >> > I
respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in> >
enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .> >> > I am also
sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is> > submitted in
an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused> > to spam, scam
and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by> > design. This issue
is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3> > April 2003,
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm ,> > which is sadly
hardly ever enforced.> >> > I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS
privacy mechanisms are> > being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent
domain's existence> > endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy
protection we> > find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS
privacy is a> > very sharp two sided sword.> >> > As an example of why we
need whois details currently: Right now a big> > corporate is giving away
free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a> > dispro!
 portiona
te large number of registrants from small towns across> > America shown in
domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other> > businesses. We
contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had> > no knowledge of
these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents> > etc. We have contacted
the big corporate and registrar in an attempt> > to address this issue. The
domains are "disabled" in the corporate's> > system. However the result of
the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS> > without the victims' permission.
Without verifiable whois this problem> > would have been denied (as was
originally attempted) and the problem> > invisible. This situation is still
ongoing. I am talking far in excess> > of a thousand domains in a year! Yet
this is just the tip of the> > iceberg ...> >> > To really represent end
users, current issues and procedures should be> > fixed first. If not, the
problem is merely disguised and we would all> > be worse off at the end of
the day. It is a sad fact that much more> > money is lost due to internet
fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being> > visible.> >> > Long term I would
love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price> > of partially
disarming those currently doing what they do to make the> > Internet a safer
place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to,> > though they would have
the same problem.> >> > Personally I have numerous domains with whois
protection, but my whois> > details are 100% correct for those domains and I
am using an available> > acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept
responsibility for them.> > These mechanisms are available to other users as
well, if privacy is a> > concern to them - with the exception of the
initially much abused .us> > TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us
domain. We do have choices.> >> > In a nutshell, there is also a reason why
whois is sometimes not> > accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility
illegal activities.> > How do you protect against that?> >> > To fix, we
have to fully understand the implicatio!
 ns of ea
ch action.> > Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we
would wish.> > Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.>
>> > Best regards,> >> > Derek Smythe> > http://www.aa419.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://atlarge.icann.org > > > > >
------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:26:53
-0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>>
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft
Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: derek at aa419.org, Wendy Seltzer
<wendy at seltzer.com>> Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org,
aheineman at ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:>
<32195901.1207524414028.JavaMail.root at elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Derek, Wendy and all,> > No
offense to you Derek, but I believe you and Wendy> are essentially saying
the same thing in different ways.> As one that has lead the charge regarding
Whois privacy> AND Accuracy sense 2002, I can attest personally and>
professionally to both your and Wendy's contentions.> > What astonishes me
is that the ICANN staff and Bod> cannot seem to come to terms with the
reality of the> mess that they originally created, when at one time there>
was ONE Whois [ centralized model ]. Now there are > many and none are
accurate/up to date. such is not> excusable nor in any way acceptable to
have gone on for> so long now... From where I sit anyway this clearly
points> to a lack of competent leadership on the part of ICANN.> > Your
issue with Whois seems to focus on security related> aspects as they relate
to accuracy. And I agree, those> elements are interwoven. So is however
privacy. Without> registrants Whois and registration data being private to>
a degree and that degree limits only LEA's having unrestricted> access to
the f!
 ull Whoi
s record of any registration, than> the security of the registrant is in
jeopardy as may be the> security of any of that registrants business
customers including> governments or other government agencies. therefore I
don't> believe we want to take that much of a risk with a completely> open
Whois structure or access. Nor do I believe that LEA's> or governments
and/or government agencies desire such a potential> security risk either.> >
-----Original Message-----> >From: Derek Smythe <derek at aa419.org>> >Sent:
Apr 6, 2008 3:29 PM> >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>> >Cc:
alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss]
Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN
Board> >> > Wendy Seltzer wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS
privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better
than forced accuracy.> >...> >...> >> > >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting.
We all know that WHOIS is very> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious
problem and considerable effort needs> >> to be made to improve this
situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >> is proposed when the
existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >> make a big problem
worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >> not fit for
purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >> respect to WHOIS
? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >> in the
Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >> comments here
to compliance activities related to the operational> >> planning cycle, this
should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >> related to WHOIS are
limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >> on the policy aspects
of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > >Wendy> >> >I respectfully disagree. Whois
accuracy severely impacts end users in > >enforcing their legal rights and
hampers effective .> >> >I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all
inaccurate whois is > >submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains
!
 that are
 abused > >to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is
by > >design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3
> >April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , >
>which is sadly hardly ever enforced.> >> >I have a lot of evidence of how
existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are > >being abused to simply prolong a
fraudulent domain's existence > >endangering more clueless end users. Under
the privacy protection we > >find more fake whois details fort many domains.
WHOIS privacy is a > >very sharp two sided sword.> >> >As an example of why
we need whois details currently: Right now a big > >corporate is giving away
free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a > >disproportionate large number of
registrants from small towns across > >America shown in domains spoofing
banks, government agencies and other > >businesses. We contacted numerous of
these registrants who in turn had > >no knowledge of these domains; 4X year
old teachers, estate agents > >etc. We have contacted the big corporate and
registrar in an attempt > >to address this issue. The domains are "disabled"
in the corporate's > >system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly
visible in WHOIS > >without the victims' permission. Without verifiable
whois this problem > >would have been denied (as was originally attempted)
and the problem > >invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking
far in excess > >of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip
of the > >iceberg ...> >> >To really represent end users, current issues and
procedures should be > >fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised
and we would all > >be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact
that much more > >money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely
WHOIS being > >visible.> >> >Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy,
however not at the price > >of partially disarming those currently doing
what they do to make the > >Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I
a!
 m referr
ing to, > >though they would have the same problem.> >> >Personally I have
numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois > >details are 100%
correct for those domains and I am using an available > >acknowledged
privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. > >These mechanisms are
available to other users as well, if privacy is a > >concern to them - with
the exception of the initially much abused .us > >TLD. However nobody is
forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.> >> >In a nutshell, there is
also a reason why whois is sometimes not > >accurate on many domains: To
evade responsibility illegal activities. > >How do you protect against
that?> >> >To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each
action. > >Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would
wish. > >Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.> >>
>Best regards,> >> >Derek Smythe> >http://www.aa419.org> Regards,> >
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)>
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -> Abraham Lincoln> > "Credit
should go with the performance of duty and not with what is> very often the
accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt> > "If the probability be called P;
the injury, L; and the burden, B;> liability depends upon whether B is less
than L multiplied by> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."> United States v.
Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]>
===============================================================> Updated
1/26/04> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS.> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.> ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> My Phone:
214-244-4827> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Sun,
6 Apr 2008 16:38:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams"
<jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community
Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To:
Wendy Sel!
 tzer <we
ndy at seltzer.com>> Cc: At-Large writ small <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>,>
aheineman at ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:>
<12301735.1207525083681.JavaMail.root at elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Wendy and all,> > Frankly I
couldn't agree more with your comments> and your tone as well, Wendy. Well
done! The ALAC> seems more interested in curring favor for financial>
support from ICANN, than it does being interested in> the input from users,
IMO thus far... Hopefully that> will change. But it will only change when
censorship> is eliminated and no longer allowed, when openness and>
transparency aren't just words but are demonstrated> and fully recognized. >
> -----Original Message-----> >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>>
>Sent: Apr 6, 2008 1:52 PM> >To: NA Discuss
<na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Cc: At-Large writ small
<alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss]
Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN
Board> >> >At-Large Staff wrote:> >> Dear Community members:> >> > >>
[ENGLISH TEXT]> >> > >> We have been asked to notify you that two draft
statements to the ICANN> >> Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are
now open for comments from> >> all members of the At-Large community.
Comments will be accepted until 16th> >> April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after
which time comments will be reviewed by the> >> ALAC Finance and Budget
committee before transmitting the final text to the> >> Board of Directors
as an Advisory Committee statement.> >> > >> Draft Statement to the ICANN
Board on the Budget and Operational Plan> >> Framework for 2008/2009:> >>
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2> >> >The
statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments:> >> >Drop the
"compliments" bs.> >Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy
is the way to> >preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> >Drop
the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no> >!
 evidence
 the community is working any better, when these statements come> >out with
little evidence of community input.> >> >How about focusing on some things
important to end-users?> >* Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster
market competition;> >* reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP;> >*
introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup;> >*
protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data> >they
send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries.> >for just a few.> >>
>---> >> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2> >> >STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft>
>COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee>
>DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008> >COMMUNITY REVIEW
CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008> >> >NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW:
Committee responsible reviews> >comments, produces final draft which is
transmitted to the Board of> >Directors of ICANN> >> >Community members are
invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide> >their views on the text
here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC.> >At-Large Advisory Committee
Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft> >Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009>
>> >We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and>
>welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan>
>and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009.> >> >Firstly, please note our
endorsement of the change to the budgeting and> >operational planning
process introduced this year. It seems to us that> >the combination of the
consultation on these obviously closely-related> >issues is eminently
sensible. We also welcome the longer public> >consultation timelines that
this allows.> >> >As this is the first stage of this process, these comments
are> >introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary>
>reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare> >the
Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation.> >> >Our
comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various>!
  >?Activ
ities/Outcomes by Initiative?. We do not propose to comment on> >each of
these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community.> >> >IDN
Activities> >> >This is a very important area of work for At-Large ? and
also for all of> >ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN
activity in this> >area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise
the element of> >communications related to IDNs.> >> >Fundamental choices
that will affect the many communities that do not> >rely upon the Latin
character set will be made in the next few years.> >For that reason, we
believe ICANN, in partnership with other> >stakeholders of course, needs to
make a substantial, sustained, greatly> >increased effort to communicate
with these communities ?to ensure that> >the message about the forthcoming
choices to be made related to IDNs> >reaches a far larger pool of potential
contributors to the process than> >is currently aware and participating.
This should not simply take the> >form of translated press releases but
really a well-thought-out media> >campaign which ?reaches out? to the
public. We know that efforts to do> >this work exist ? we wish to emphasise
that this is extremely important.> >We note that we have asked the At-Large
staff to propose funding in the> >forthcoming FY to revise and expand the
available materials related to> >outreach to the individual Internet user
community and this is just one> >aspect that such an effort must address.>
>> >Compliance Activities> >> >We note the increase in staffing and staff
work related to compliance.> >We are pleased to see that the budget
framework proposes further> >considerable investment in this area. However
we wish to note what we> >see as two crucial missing major activities in
this area related to> >compliance:> >> > * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We
all know that WHOIS is very> >inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and
considerable effort needs> >to be made to improve this situation.
Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >is proposed when the ex!
 isting d
atabase is inaccurate is just asking to> >make a big problem worse ? and the
existing reporting system is already> >not fit for purpose. ICANN is not
living up to its obligations with> >respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be
a headline compliance activity> >in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009.
Whilst we are limiting our> >comments here to compliance activities related
to the operational> >planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean
that our concerns> >related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our
previous statements> >on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > *
Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information> >on how
registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome>
>improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline>
>activity in the Operational Plan Framework to ?Implement Complaints>
>Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties>
>as approved?. This is a start but is not nearly enough ? such a system>
>needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were>
>addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report>
>whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying>
>philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that>
>the contractees are living up to their side of the ?deal? and completely>
>offloading complaints to the contractee ? or anyone else ? is in our>
>opinion not satisfactory.> >> >Global Outreach> >> >This is a particularly
important area to us. The various communities in> >ICANN are not
representative of the worldwide Internet-using community.> >Whilst we
appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in> >funds
allocated to Global Outreach ? we will look forward to seeing more> >detail
about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is> >posted.
However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under> >Global
Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ?Implement> >business
engagement !
 outreach
?. If this is intended to be outreach only> >to business communities, this
is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow> >? outreach efforts and
recruitment efforts must be be even-handed,> >global ? and to all
communities and potential participant communities,> >not just ?business?. We
draw the attention of the board to the many> >comments about the importance
of dramatically increasing the outreach> >and recruitment of ALL
stakeholders that was a common theme of the> >respondents to the JPA review
recently; From this we propose that there> >is broad support for greatly
increased work by ICANN in these respects.> >> >We welcome the continued
support for participation by our community from> >ICANN. Without it the
Internet end-user?s voice will simply not be> >adequately represented.
Facilitation of community participation (and> >specifically that of
volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important> >issue and one important
aspect of this is covered in greater depth in> >our statement to you in
relation to the development of a volunteer> >travel and expense support
policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2> >which is accessible at <insert
url here>.> >> >Policy Development Support> >> >We welcome the major theme
associated with this area of work on page 25,> >that ICANN will ?provide
additional secretariat support to SOs,> >constituencies and ACs to make
volunteer efforts more effective.? We are> >direct beneficiaries of this,
with the addition of two members of staff> >on the At-Large team. It should
be noted that the recent filling of> >these long-open positions is already
beginning to increase our capacity> >for working with greater efficiency
(particularly in the RALO?s), and we> >hope that the support our community
receives of this kind will become> >generally available across the
constituencies and communities and look> >forward to seeing the detailed
plans for how the objective listed in> >this area is to be achieved.> >>
>Registrant Protections> >> >We welcome the increased activity in this area
? how!
 ever, th
e board> >needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review
process> >appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there
is> >current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us
(or> >anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of>
>work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example,>
>due to work on new gTLDs taking priority ?the priority must be given to>
>the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about>
>adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be> >meaningful
deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA ? in a> >completely open
and transparent manner.> >> >Transcription and Translation> >> >Our
community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual>
>organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased>
>budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this>
>direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way>
>to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes.> >In
our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to> >the
organisation?s credibility, as we do not believe that any> >consultation or
policy development process conducted entirely in English> >is globally
legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs> >that ?
incredibly ?continue to be largely English-only, with> >multilingual
documents provided only in some cases, often far later than> >the original
English versions, and only as an afterthought.> >> >Ensuring that the work
of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core,> >critical objective. It must
not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other> >objectives like new gTLDs.> >>
>Broaden Participation> >> >This area is of great importance ? not just to
our community but to all> >communities. In particular, whilst the provisions
for teleconferences> >for our community have improved by changing vendors,
we do not believe> >that it makes sense to continu!
 e to out
source this core communications> >function and so we welcome the news that
ICANN proposes to purchase a> >truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate
telephonic interactions. We> >hope that in doing so choices will be made
which truly facilitate equal> >access and quality for all participants,
regardless of where they might be.> >In particular, the new system must
provide for the technical operation> >of simultaneous interpretation on
teleconferences. This is an absolutely> >essential function, not something
that is ?nice to have?. Our experience> >with this has clearly shown that
the ability to work, interact and> >correspond (both face to face and
remotely) in the language that is most> >comfortable and easy to work with
greatly increases and enhances> >effective participation.> >> >We would also
like to emphasise how important it is to broadening> >participation of
effective remote participation in meetings, of which> >telephonic two-way
participation is only one element. We believe that> >the current remote
participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not> >fit for purpose. Our
statement in relation to the development of a> >volunteer travel and expense
support policy, in document> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert
url here> also has the> >elaboration on our views on the subject of remote
participation, and> >meetings.> >> >In addition to these points, we wish to
emphasise that one of the most> >important elements of participation is
ICANN producing documents in> >standardised formats which are accessible,
written in plain language,> >with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries,
and the like. This is a> >real shortcoming of present document production at
ICANN and it is a> >real barrier to participation.> >We also believe that
fostering participation actually requires a> >regionally sensitive approach
and often regionally differentiated> >materials. In developing countries,
radio and audiovisual materials, to> >mention just two formats, are the best
way to reach non-traditional> >ICANN!
  stakeho
lders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would> >not be in the
nature of general Internet education but should be related> >to the mission
of ICANN and its mandate.> >> >In closing, we thank the board in advance for
its consideration of our> >views, and look forward to a response to our
concerns and> >recommendations in due course.> >> >> Regards,> > Spokesman
for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)> "Obedience of
the law is the greatest freedom" -> Abraham Lincoln> > "Credit should go
with the performance of duty and not with what is> very often the accident
of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt> > "If the probability be called P; the
injury, L; and the burden, B;> liability depends upon whether B is less than
L multiplied by> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."> United States v.
Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]>
===============================================================> Updated
1/26/04> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS.> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.> ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> My Phone:
214-244-4827> > > > ------------------------------> >
_______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list>
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > End of ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16>
************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces. It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&
mkt=en-us
_______________________________________________
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://atlarge.icann.org