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

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue Jan 6 05:28:25 EST 2009 

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)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT NCSG Petition Form-rdg-mm-v 3.1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 109056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20090106/0075b53f/attachment-0001.doc>

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list