[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard

Tue Mar 29 18:20:45 UTC 2011

My apologies, Richard Tindal's LinkedIn profile says he was VP of registry services/sales and marketing for Neustar, which is a member of the registry constituency, until 2008, and now is SVP at DemandMedia, which recently purchased eNom, so I apologize for that error, and perhaps his current CV on LinkedIn is not up to date.

However, one of Antony Van Couvering's companies, Minds + Machines, markets its consulting services as "covering every aspect of the TLD business. Our flexible, low-cost domain name registry technology is the most widely-deployed on the planet." (http://www.mindsandmachines.com/about/)

According to the Registry Constituency Charter, "The primary role of the RySG is to represent the interests of all gTLD registry operators (or sponsors in the case of sponsored gTLDs) (“Registries”) (i) that are currently under contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs; (ii) who agree to be bound by consensus policies in that contract; and (iii) who voluntarily choose to be members of the RySG."

According to Minds + Machines' 2009 lawsuit against the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck and his wife (http://www.newmanlaw.com/download/puck/1.pdf), Minds + Machines "is currently working with clients and business partners to secure and operate Internet domain name registries for .eco, .basketball, .nyc, .sfo, .radio, .zulu and .love," and, apparently, formerly with Mr. and Mrs. Puck, .food.

Under those circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how Minds + Machines would not fit the registry constituency's criteria, but I am not a party to its proceedings and it is not for me to speculate. This is perhaps a matter best addressed by Antony directly with that constituency, or with the ICANN ombudsman.

NARALO's operating principle 17 says that to register as an unaffiliated member, one should "send a short Statement of Interest (SOI) to staff at atlarge.icann.org indicating that you meet the requirements for Unaffiliated Members:
* be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list,
* be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the NorthAmerican region as defined by ICANN,
* not be a member of a certified ALS."

In addition to that, the Unaffiliated Member Representative "must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar," though neither Richard nor Antony have applied for that role.

However, in San Francisco, when we broadly and publicly invited participation of individuals, we said the requirements basically mirrored the requirements for at-large structures, which are:

    * Professional societies (e.g. engineers, attorneys, etc.)
    * Academic and research organizations
    * Community networking groups
    * Consumer advocacy groups
    * Internet Society chapters
    * Computer user organizations
    * Internet civil society groups

I reiterate that we have a limited amount of time as volunteers in at-large, and that it ought best be spent working with Internet end-users, and that at the policy-making level we should not be concerned with holding ourselves accountable to registries and their representatives.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>Sent: Mar 29, 2011 3:38 PM
>To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position	statement on GAC scorecard
>
>Hi,
>
>But i thought that AT Large, and especially NARALO individual membership, were open to all users, whether business on not.  And that in the At-large, profit was not a bad word.
>
>And as they have argued, the GNSO has no place for them, since they are neither Registries nor Registrars the can't join the Contracted Parties House - they don't have a contract and if the forces of delay have their way will never have a contract.  
>
>As they are not non-commercial actors they can't join the NCSG, and as the CSG does not accept individuals, they cannot join the CSG.  So the only home for them is At-Large which is supposed to take all users no matter what their other concerns.  I assume they use the Internet and are subject to the vagaries of URL and domain names just like other users so I can see no barrier to their participation - if they wish to ally themselves with At-large.
>
>Or do they need to join a friendly ISOC chapter to be qualified?  I understand a number of them are open.
>
>a.
>
>On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:34, Beau Brendler wrote:
>
>> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users." 
>> 
>> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM
>>> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position	statement on GAC scorecard
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position?  Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of?
>>> 
>>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency?
>>> 
>>> with kind regards,
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about
>>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial
>>>> volunteer time into the details.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>> 
>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>>> ------
>> 
>> 
>
>
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>------