[NA-Discuss] Reporting on Durban meeting

RJ Glass jipshida2 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 22 23:16:35 UTC 2013


Good job Evan, and everyone else who went !!!







>________________________________
> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>To: Dharma Dailey <dharma.dailey at gmail.com> 
>Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Reporting on Durban meeting
> 
>
>Ick.  Gmail sent my mail without me pressing Send.
>
>A few other points I wanted to make:
>
>   - On gTLD program metrics, I was pleasantly surprised to know that the
>   Board accepted BOTH the GNSO and ALAC metrics in toto and has instructed
>   staff to act on all of them. Some of you may know that I had taken the GNSO
>   working group on metrics to task for producing a set of metrics that was
>   self-serving and too limited in scope to properly measure the effectiveness
>   of the gTLD expansion program. As a result I helped create a set of
>   additional metrics -- some of which were explicitly rejected by the GNSO --
>   that better measured the end-user consequences of the expansion. Until last
>   week it was unknown whether the Board would accept any of the supplemental
>   ALAC-approved metrics. At its meeting Thursday the Board agreed to
>   everything we asked for and gave the ALAC and GNSO metrics equal weight in
>   its approval vote.
>
>   - The meeting between the ALAC and ICANN
>Board<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39673> was
>   IMO* very* enlightening. There is an increasing level of comfort between
>   the two groups in a frank exchange of ideas, and a better sense that we are
>   at least factoring into Board decisions even when they don't go completely
>   our way. Some may find interesting an exchange for the last 15 or so
>   minutes of the meeting in which almost no ALAC people spoke, most of the
>   dialogue was between Fadi and Board members.
>
>   - The budget for the second At-Large Summit -- tentatively scheduled for
>   the London meeting in just under a year from now -- is generally approved.
>   Congrats to NARALO's own Eduardo Diaz and the ATLAS2 team for building a
>   sound case for the event. Now the challenge is for us to make best use of
>   that week to inform and empower ALSs. (I'm personally not a fan of using
>   that time for "capacity building", IMO that's not ICANN's role ... though
>   high-quality accessible information on ICANN issues most certainly is)
>
>   - One issue that was of especially personal interest to me is how the
>   term "rights and responsibilities", that has been in frequent use within
>   ICANN of late (in part thanks to ALAC keeping the issue at hand) has been
>   occasionally changed to "benefits and responsibilities" in the new ICANN
>   contracts with contracted parties. I personally raised this at
>thePublic Forum<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39853>(second question
>asked in the " general community issues" segment of the
>   PF. The response? After what seemeed about a minute or so of deliberation
>   with ICANN Counsel and other staff, Fadi answered "we'll get back to you".
>   I intend to follow up.
>
>Many significant areas of interest to At-Large -- including the way Public
>Interest Commitments and Internationalized Domain Names will be handled --
>were not resolved at Durban and we continue to be involved in those issues.
>ICANN is definitely feeling the aftermath of not having better categorized
>the gTLD applications in order to escalate those of greatest public benefit.
>
>So. I guess that's my report, Comments and questions welcomed.
>
>- Evan
>
>
>
>
>On 22 July 2013 16:08, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
>> I did give an impromptu update on the week Friday during an ISOC
>> conference call (help every week for North American chapters). I was still
>> in Durban at the time, and the call quality is spotty. But, thanks to Joly,
>> the report was recorded and is available at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5802
>>
>> My take is that the meeting was fairly positive, from the end-user PoV,
>> for a couple of reasons:
>>
>>
>>    - Fadi Chehade is breaking off the gTLD operations -- including the
>>    new expansion program -- into a semi-independent division that will let the
>>    rest of ICANN be less distracted by the expansion in dealing with issues
>>    such as directory services, registrant privacy versus accountability, IPV6,
>>    DNSSEC, and similar matters. Quite telling is the fact that contractual
>>    compliance was not split off into the new division and will repoprt
>>    directly to Fadi. This should make for less future obfuscation but I will
>>    remain skeptical until proven otherwise.
>>
>>    - On dotless domains and internally-conflicted domains (ie, .corp,
>>    .bar, .example), we scored what I would call a win. ALAC has been telling
>>    ICANN to heed its own SSAC advice (which is against deletaing such domains)
>>    but ICANN says the community is "split" and has ordered new business
>>    studies. During the ALAC meeting with the GAC, we asked the GAC to consider
>>    these issues seriously (it had not to that time been seen on the GAC's
>>    "radar", so to speak. The GAC communique issued at the end of the Durban
>>    meeting week was clear in supporting the community position backing the
>>    SSAC recommendations.
>>    -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 July 2013 13:50, Dharma Dailey <dharma.dailey at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kieren,
>>>
>>> I haven't forgotten your suggestion before the meeting for communicating
>>> back to the NARALO about the meeting.  I heartily agree that for those of
>>> us who can't regularly attend meetings, it's super helpful to get a birds
>>> eye view analysis from our reps on the ground. IMO, that's low hanging
>>> fruit on the engagement continuum. Before attending, I imagined that I
>>> might send communications on the fly, but the way the schedule is
>>> constructed doesn't lend itself to reflection and synthesis. For example,
>>> on Sunday we were in meetings for 13 + hours straight.  So, I quickly
>>> abandoned the idea of trying to report on the fly.  However, I did leave
>>> with 31 pages of typed notes which I will wheedle down to one woman's guess
>>> at what will be of most interest to you and the rest of NARALO.  One
>>> consequence of the travel and conference schedule was that I came back with
>>> a wicked cold. So, it may take me a few days to report back.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Dharma Dailey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 12:15 PM, "Garth Bruen" <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Kieren,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for the comment. Our elections are critical and getting them
>>> right is
>>> > even more important.
>>> >
>>> > As far as reporting goes I would like to draw your attention to this
>>> > document: http://www.knujon.com/icann_compliance_2012.pdf which shows
>>> that
>>> > ICANN's internal compliance function is essentially non-functional
>>> > regardless of recently published data by ICANN. This was a follow up to
>>> a
>>> > report sent directly to the CEO
>>> > (
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/bruen-to-chehade-22apr13-en.pdf
>>> > ) which has not been responded to.
>>> >
>>> > ICANN is failing the public At-Large and won't discuss these core
>>> concerns,
>>> > has been completely silent on them. I think you can help by raising your
>>> > voice to ask about them as well from within our community.
>>> >
>>> > There is a very long report log here:
>>> >
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Durban+Meeting+Reports+
>>> > Workspace which is being constantly updated by At-Large representatives,
>>> > even remote ones. Working groups regularly give reports on our monthly
>>> > calls. We'd love to have you come on and give your perspective, let me
>>> know.
>>> >
>>> > So, it's not really a question of reporting from At-Large, it's more of
>>> a
>>> > question of why we have to leave our families and travel thousands of
>>> miles
>>> > just to be ignored by ICANN. It's really not that much fun. If the
>>> problems
>>> > could be solved and questions answered, we wouldn't have to go at all.
>>> >
>>> > -Garth
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren
>>> > McCarthy
>>> > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:09 PM
>>> > To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
>>> >
>>> > I wish as much time, energy and effort had gone into informing us about
>>> the
>>> > meeting you were paid as our representatives to attend last week in
>>> Durban
>>> > as has been out into bickering about voting procedures.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kieren
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [from mobile device]
>>> >
>>> > On Jul 21, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Tom,
>>> >>
>>> >> I presume that by "incumbent" you mean people in office such as the
>>> ALAC
>>> > members or ALAC Chair (usually it is used referring to the person who
>>> is in
>>> > office but is in a contested election).
>>> >>
>>> >> I guess our experiences are different. Certainly someone who is part
>>> of a
>>> > current organization is familiar with the others who may be in a
>>> contested
>>> > election. But KNOW is definitely not the same as TRUST and not
>>> infrequently
>>> > KNOW is synonymous with wanting someone new. (And I am not implying
>>> anything
>>> > about the people in the current election).
>>> >>
>>> >> Alan
>>> >>
>>> >> At 21/07/2013 02:34 PM, toml at communisphere.com wrote:
>>> >>> Alan,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What I am trying to say is that incumbents will better know and trust
>>> a
>>> > known player. Amopholy (sp?), might describe the human response that
>>> Option
>>> > 4 draws upon. There are both good and bad associated with this. Random
>>> is
>>> > life.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> T9m Lowenhaupt
>>> >>
>>> >> ------
>>> >> 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
>>> ------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Evan Leibovitch
>> Toronto Canada
>>
>> Em: evan at telly dot org
>> Sk: evanleibovitch
>> Tw: el56
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Evan Leibovitch
>Toronto Canada
>
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Sk: evanleibovitch
>Tw: el56
>------
>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