[Euro-board] [EURO-Discuss] Agenda - ALAC call, January 13, any comments?

Wolf Ludwig wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
Tue Jan 6 08:40:04 EST 2009

Hi Adam,

thanks for your initiative to invite EURALO members for 
ALAC agenda suggestions or comments. I have nothing 
at the moment under "RALO reports" except we and 
other RALOs have a high responsibility to mobilise our/ 
their members for the Mexico Summit -- and the 2nd 
survey should be concluded by then. This is my top 
priority at the moment.

Unfortunately, I can follow the discussion on the
>composition of the new GNSO noncommercial 
>stakeholder group. The GNSO NCUC has developed a 
>proposal, (...) and the issues raised by Danny Younger
as an observer but I find them highly interesting but I 
don't know the positions of other EURALO members.

Thanks and regards,

 Adam Peake wrote Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:28:
>Draft agenda for the next ALAC teleconference has 
>been posted 
>Current text of the agenda below.
>Does anyone have items they wish to add (or we 
>can try to have added) to the agenda?  Or 
>comments on any item on the agenda?   There is a 
>section for any RALO report should we have 
>anything to report.
>Please note one item we should be considering:
>    * What are the most useful issues to discuss 
>at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN 
>constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics 
>(see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit 
>survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes)
>Is there anything we wish to raise?
>One issue Danny Younger requests action on is the 
>composition of the new GNSO noncommercial 
>stakeholder group. The GNSO NCUC has developed a 
>proposal, I think the most current version 
>attached (I will make sure and repost of not.)
>Is EU RALO satisfied with this NCUC proposal? 
>Other RALOs seem not to be and the board has 
>asked that interested parties ensure the 
>interests of individual Internet users are 
>represented. If we do not support the NCUC 
>proposal, what do we suggest in its place, or 
>what amendments should be made.
>As part of the GNSO reform there is also an 
>effort underway by NA RALO on "new 
>constituencies" that people might like to follow. 
>Archives here 
>(I think the archive open.)
>I think Danny also makes good points about 
>problems with registrars and rather than 
>discussing as something that leads to a motion or 
>a action immediately, I would like this as an 
>issue for discussion when ALAC meets with the 
>Board on Mexico.  Does this sound reasonable? 
>And does anyone have anything to add about 
>Danny's concerns.  See his comments about 
>OnlineNic in particular.
>A G E N D A
>Standing Agenda Items
>    1. Adoption of the Agenda ­ 1 min
>    2. Roll Call Apologies from Members (if any) - 1 min
>    3. Adoption of the 09 December 2008 Summary Minutes
>    4. Review of the 09 December 2008 Action Items - 8 mins
>    5. Review of current status of ALS 
>applications (Google Docs account needed to 
>access) - 5 mins
>    6. Reports
>    7. ExCom Activities
>    8. Liaison reports
>  Note: There will be no discussion of liaison 
>reports during the meeting; these links are by 
>way of information only. Any Liaison who wishes a 
>discussion to take place on an item related to 
>their brief, or has an item for which a decision 
>is required, is to use this wiki to edit the 
>sections under Items for Decision, or Items for 
>Discussion, as relevant.
>           o IDN Report - at 
>           o Board Liaison Report - (please place 
>a link to your report page here)
>           o ccNSO Report - (please place a link to your report page here)
>           o NCUC - (please place a link to your report page here)
>           o SSAC - (please place a link to your report page here)
>           o GNSO - (please place a link to your report page here)
>           o dotMOBI Liaison Report
>9. Working Group Reports: (Please insert below)
>10. RALO Reports: (may be inserted below)
>11. Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting
>12. Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements (see Decision Items below)
>13. Update on recent summit activities - Summit WG participants
>Items for Decision at This Meeting:
>     * Proposal to move the monthly ALAC Meeting 
>from the second Tuesday of the month at 1230 UTC 
>to the 4th Tuesday. If accepted, please use the 
>meeting planer to help find the most suitable 
>     * ALAC Statement on the new gTLD Applicant 
>Guidebook (see 
>     * What are the most useful issues to discuss 
>at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN 
>constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics 
>(see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit 
>survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes)
>Items for Discussion Only
>     * Draft ALAC comment on the PSC
>Any Other Business
>Reference Materials for Review
>What is the process for adding additional items to the Agenda?
>Danny Younger
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 28 7:18am
>I suggest Danny, that you write here your items 
>and all the ALAC members will be able to see them.
>Sebastien Bachollet
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:03am
>Sebastien, please endeavor to get this item on the agenda.
>Danny Younger
>Topic: Proposed Letter to the Board
>Dear members of the Board,
>An ICANN-accredited registrar, OnlineNic, has 
>been found guilty by a court of competent 
>jurisdiction of cybersquatting (violations of the 
>U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act); 
>the court has awarded a $33.15 million judgment. 
>OnlineNic currently has almost 1.2 million domain 
>names under management and the registrant 
>community must be protected from the inevitable 
>impending demise of this registrar (who still 
>faces additional lawsuits from Yahoo! and 
>Microsoft). We are of the view that ICANN should 
>send a strong message that (1) cybersquatting 
>will never be tolerated and that (2) registrants 
>will always be protected, by immediately invoking 
>section of the Registrar Accreditation 
>Agreement and terminating OnlineNic¹s 
>accreditation. We ask you to commence bulk 
>transfer arrangements in order to shift all 
>registrations away from OnlineNic to a more 
>suitable registrar.
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:30pm
>Topic: Continued Violations of Consensus Policy by GoDaddy
>There is nothing more disgusting than watching 
>ICANN doing nothing in the face of continued 
>ongoing violations of Consensus Policy by a major 
>registrar. On the Radio GoDaddy show CEO Bob 
>Parsons and his General Counsel Christine 
>Williams discuss their firm's deliberate 
>violations of the Consensus Policy on 
>Inter-Registrar Tranfers -- see 
>(the 12-17 segment featuring Andrew Alleman of 
>Domain Name Wire -- the discussion starts at 15 
>minutes and 30 seconds into the segment). 
>Registrants expect the rules to be enforced (no 
>matter who is breaking the rules). Will the ALAC 
>ever speak out about this abuse and defend the 
>registrant community? ...or will it continue to 
>bury its head in the sand?
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 7:54am
>Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting: Transparency
>The bylaws state: "ICANN and its constituent 
>bodies shall operate to the maximum extent 
>feasible in an open and transparent manner and 
>consistent with procedures designed to ensure 
>The BC never had a transparent publicly-archived 
>list. The registries have never had a transparent 
>list. We have seen the registrars move their 
>discussions to a private non-transparent forum. 
>The IPC no longer has a transparent discussion 
>list. This situation does not exemplify operating 
>"to the maximum extent feasible in an open and 
>transparent manner"; instead it demonstrates a 
>willingness on the part of ICANN constituencies 
>to flagrantly disregard the bylaws. We expect 
>ICANN to get its house in order. It would be 
>appropriate to ask the Board to show its resolve 
>not to re-certify any ICANN constituency that has 
>failed to demonstrate a maximum effort to ensure 
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 8:32am
>Topic: URGENT -- ALAC action required
>"Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests 
>that members of the GNSO community work with 
>members of the ALAC/At-Large community and 
>representatives of potential new "non-commercial" 
>constituencies to jointly develop a 
>recommendation for the composition and 
>organizational structure of a Non-Commercial 
>Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the 
>ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures 
>that the gTLD interests of individual Internet 
>users (along with the broader non-commercial 
>community) are effectively represented within the 
>GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no 
>later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by 
>the Board."
>As of the ALAC's meeting date, the ALAC will have 
>only 11 days to come up with a plan for a NCSG 
>Charter, and this plan must be the result of 
>collaboration with GNSO community members and 
>constituency-in-formation representatives. When 
>do you plan to get started? ...or will the ALAC 
>just ignore yet another deadline? You know, for a 
>group that promised to act as a "facilitator" on 
>GNSO improvement matters, you sure haven't done 
>much facilitation.
>Please let us know what you plan to do and by 
>when so that the members of the NARALO's WG on 
>New Constituencies may be kept informed.
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 9:10am
>Topic: PSC comments
>To engender discussion, you may wish to review 
>the GAC Comments on the PSC Report 2 November 
>2008 -- see 
>contributed by Guest User on Jan 5 1:16pm

phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

Digitale Allemd
http://blog.allmend.ch -


More information about the Euro-board mailing list