[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,
Wolf
Adam Peake wrote Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:28:
>Hi,
>
>Draft agenda for the next ALAC teleconference has
>been posted
><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009>
>
>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
><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/new-constituencies_atlarge-lists.icann.org/>
>(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.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>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
>https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?liaison_monthly_report
> 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
>time.
>
> * ALAC Statement on the new gTLD Applicant
>Guidebook (see
>resource_page_for_alac_statement_on_new_gtld_guidebook
>)
>
> * 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?
>
>Thanks,
>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.
>Thanks.
>Sebastien Bachollet
>
>contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:03am
>
>Sebastien, please endeavor to get this item on the agenda.
>Thanks,
>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 5.3.2.1 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
>http://bp.bobparsons.com/gdshop/bp/show.asp?ci=9963#
>(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
>fairness."
>
>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
>transparency.
>
>Danny
>
>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.
>
>Danny
>
>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
>http://open.nat.gov.tw/OpenFront/report/show_file.jsp?sysId=C09702989&fileNo=007
>
>Danny
>
>contributed by Guest User on Jan 5 1:16pm
>
>
>(END)
comunica-ch
phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
www.comunica-ch.net
Digitale Allemd
http://blog.allmend.ch -
EURALO
https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe
More information about the Euro-board
mailing list