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

Thompson, Darlene DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA
Wed Mar 30 20:24:53 UTC 2011


As per our rules of order, as Secretariat, I find no reason why this person should not/would not be accepted as an individual of the NARALO

D

Darlene A. Thompson
CAP Administrator
N-CAP/Department of Education
P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-5631
Fax:  (867) 975-5610
dthompson at gov.nu.ca
________________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Antony Van Couvering [avc at avc.vc]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 7:23 PM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: NARALO Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position       statement on GAC scorecard

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
> ------


------
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