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

Antony Van Couvering avc at avc.vc
Tue Mar 29 23:23:41 UTC 2011


My general statement of interest is found here:  http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/soi-swg-10sep10-en.htm#van-couvering

- I am subscribed to the NA-Discuss list
- I am a permanent member of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN (the US of A)
- I am not a member of a certified ALS

Antony Van Couvering


On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Having helped draft the last revision to the rules on unaffiliated 
> members, I can state that the only rules are:
> 
> - be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list,
> - be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the 
> North American region as defined by ICANN,
> - not be a member of a certified ALS
> 
> and you must submit a statement of interest certifying that you meet 
> these rules. There is an additional rule that the formal 
> representative of the unaffilitated members, who gets to vote on 
> their behalf on the rare cases that we have votes, must must not be 
> employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, 
> an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar.
> 
> The formal document can be found at 
> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?na_2007_1_1rev1_draft_naralo_operating_principles. 
> Sadly, it is still marked as a draft even though adopted. And just as 
> sad, I just found a typo in the section on unaffiliated members....
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 29/03/2011 06:03 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>> Beau,
>> 
>> I want to be a formal part of ICANN, that's all.  There's a simple 
>> reason, which we saw evidenced at a recent public comment session at 
>> ICANN in SF -- formally constituted groups have priority of place, 
>> their positions are considered formally by the Board, 
>> etc.  Everywhere I go, it's the same story as I'm getting from you 
>> -- go elsewhere.
>> 
>> I wasn't aware that one needed to show up at a NARALO meeting to 
>> "make a case" for unaffiliated membership.  Indeed, I wasn't aware 
>> that physical participation was a requirement for any ALAC 
>> membership.  Am I wrong?  I've been on this list for some time now 
>> and I've seen groups admitted by a simple "ok with me" from a few 
>> existing members.  I've never seen any unaffiliated members being 
>> vetted for their qualifications -- can you point to an example?  Or 
>> is it simply that different views are not welcome?
>> 
>> Antony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
>> 
>>> I'll remind myself when I wake up in the morning that I'm the 
>> chairman of the "membership of last resort." And as chairman of 
>> such an esteemed group, with apologies to Groucho Marx I ask you, 
>> would you want to join a club that would have you as a member?
>>> 
>>> I am not entirely sure, actually, that you are qualified to join. 
>> If you have time, please join us at the next NARALO meeting to make 
>> your case -- I don't recall you attending any previous meetings of 
>> NARALO, but I could be wrong. I'll consult our bylaws and whatnot in advance.
>>> 
>>> Couldn't agree with you more here: "one reason that I've always 
>> argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups...they foment 
>> cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN members, 
>> degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an unequal 
>> distribution of power..."
>>> 
>>> Yes, the structure that ICANN has forced upon us has concentrated 
>> the power in the hands of the contracted parties, all right -- 
>> registries, registrars, etc. Wonder what they would do if 
>> constituencies and stakeholder groups were abolished and it was one 
>> internet user, one vote, one registry, one vote, one registrar, one vote?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc>
>>>> Sent: Mar 29, 2011 5:35 PM
>>>> To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
>>>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>, 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
>>>> 
>>>> It's quite easy -- registry constituency is for those who have 
>> signed registry contracts with ICANN.  Until new TLDs happen, we 
>> don't qualify.  We are allowed to observe, but not participate.  I 
>> kept the ICANN membership card that they issued for a brief time in 
>> the early part of the last decade, but that doesn't count for anything anymore.
>>>> 
>>>> You'd think that as someone who co-chaired the meeting that 
>> created the DNSO (now GNSO), as a one-time member of the ccTLD 
>> constituency (now ccNSO) admin council, and having been working to 
>> make ICANN function better for over ten years, that there would be 
>> a place for me *somewhere.*   Luckily there is, but only one -- 
>> under the qualifications you list below, I do qualify, as an 
>> individual, as an unaffiliated member for NARALO.  It's pretty much 
>> the "membership of last resort."   It is in that capacity that I am 
>> participating.  It's disheartening to be told that I should take my 
>> point of view elsewhere.
>>>> 
>>>> Antony
>>>> 
>>>> P.S. I won't speak for Richard Tindal, but I happen to know he 
>> is no longer with Demand Media.  He's pretty much in the same boat 
>> I am.  Waiting for Godot...
>>>> 
>>>> P.P.S. This "stateless person" problem is one reason that I've 
>> always argued against constituencies and stakeholder groups. They 
>> foment cliquishness and adversarial relations between ICANN 
>> members, degrade the possibilities for consensus, promote an 
>> unequal distribution of power, and in general any formally 
>> constituted group will always act to exclude people who stir the pot too much.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ------
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------
>>>>> 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
>> ------
> 
> ------
> 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
> ------





More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list