Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1608
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, February 24 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1608

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

"Any RALO must through its at-large
          structures or through direct membership, be open for
          participation of all individual Internet users who are
          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."

Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both regions.  
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Vittorio
> Bertola
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 8:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
> 
> 
> Comment to the proposed Bylaws modifications
> by the At Large Advisory Committee
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> The ALAC has had a limited amount of (email) discussion about the
> proposed bylaw changes. Although not all ALAC members have addressed
> this issues, those that have would like to leave the bylaw language
> concerning At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations as
> open as possible, with the understanding that details will be
> addressed in the RALO's MoUs with ICANN, and that the ALAC and ICANN
> will be responsible for ensuring that the MoU meets basic criteria for
> involving individual Internet users and advancing their interests
> within ICANN.
> 
> While the ALAC wants to make clear and irrevocable that the RALOs and
> At-Large Structures represent the voices of individuals, not
> organizations, the Committee does not want a formalism in the bylaws
> to block participation of groups that genuinely represent individuals
> but also accept organizational/corporate members.  The ALAC
> acknowledges that ICANN needs to be mindful of two possible scenarios:
> an individuals-only policy blocks ISOC chapters and other individual
> participation, or lack of such a policy permits some company to
> "organize" an At-Large Structure and capture its RALO.  The ALAC
> thinks the problem of preventing organizational capture should be left
> to the RALOs in the first instance; and that too detailed a policy may
> hamper the groups most effectively representing individuals.
> 
> In addition to some ISOC chapters, there is concern that some of the
> groups listed below, which could be considered potential candidates
> for At-Large Structures, could not fully participate under the
> proposed bylaws (note: these are hypothetical examples and do not
> indicate any commitment or interest on the part of these
> organizations):
> 
>   a.. Association for Internet Professionals (AIP)
> (http://www.association.org/) has both individual and corporate
> memberships
>   b.. ISOC ECC and CECUA have only organizational members and have
> asked to be included as At-Large Structures (although it is not clear
> why they should receive this delegation rather than each of their
> members being delegated an ALS)
>   c.. www.stikom.edu - appears to provide individuals with news,
> education, and community discussion on issues relevant to At-Large,
> but does not have memberships
>   d.. LatinoamerICANN (http://www.latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar) is
> an apendix of the Alfa-Redi Society, which is an international
> membership-only society of lawyers specializing in computing law
> (http://www.alfa-redi.org); to members LatinoamerICANN provides
> information on the DNS and related issues.
>   e.. Arab Knowledge Management Society (www.akms.org) - non profit
> education service addressing "digital divide issues" with no
> memberships
>   f.. Institute for Study of Information Tech and Society --
> http://communityconnections.heinz.cmu.edu/insites/about --  nonprofit
> group for teaching, research and public outreach on information
> technology policy, has corporate members/supporters
>   g.. Consumers' Union/Consumer Policy Institute
> (http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/about.htm) and EPIC (Electronic
> Privacy Information Center) (http://www.epic.org/) -- have some
> compatible objectives, involve individuals in their policy development
> and other activities, and could contribute to ICANN policy/issue
> debates, but are not membership organizations
> 
>   With this in mind, the ALAC offers the following draft language for
> the Committee's consideration:
> 
>           (h) Each RALO shall be comprised of self-supporting At-Large
>           Structures within its Geographic Region, certified to meet
>           the requirements of the RALO's Memorandum of Understanding
>           with ICANN according to paragraph 4(i) of this Section.  If
>           so provided by its memorandum of understanding with ICANN, a
>           RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users
>           who are citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
>           Geographic Region. Any RALO must, through its at-large
>           structures or through direct membership, be open for
>           participation of all individual Internet users who are
>           citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
>           Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI).
> 
>           (i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
>           meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
>           The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
>           Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
>           established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
>           ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
>           that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
>           characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
>           stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
>           the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
>           At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
>           individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
>           the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
>           de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
>           criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
>           members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
>           to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
>           give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
>           meets the applicable criteria and standards.
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
> 
> The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee
> -- 
> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:15:54 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler				<[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:12:57 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:53:31 -0000, you wrote:

>Vittorio -
>
>How do you see these geographical RALOs self-organising?
>
>If, on the one hand, you have organisations claiming to represent the
>interests of hundreds or thousands, and on the other hand, you also have
>individual users in the RALOs, what procedures do you propose to determine
>the policies, demands and leadership of any given RALO?
>
>If there is no democratic organisation within the RALOs, how do you
>determine policy and viewpoints?
>
>If there *is* to be democratic organisation, how do you balance the votes of
>individuals against the 'weight' of various-sized organisations?

These are exactly the open questions we have now. In the last weeks
(as reflected in these Bylaws modifications) the prevailing opinion
seems to be that you have to accept organizations as members of the
RALOs, but that relying on individuals with a 1 head = 1 vote
principle is the only reasonable instrument to come out of these
problems - so organizations would mainly act as points of entry and
opinion-makers for the individual membership. But this is just my
opinion.

I encourage all interested people to participate in the process of
formation of the RALOs, as it will be in the RALO's Bylaws that these
issues will be finalized. Our comments to the ERC went in this
direction - ICANN Bylaws should restate the principle that RALOs are
to represent individuals, but how to practically obtain this is to
vary from Region to Region and should be self-decided by the Region
itself.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:13:43 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:

>"Any RALO must through its at-large
>          structures or through direct membership, be open for
>          participation of all individual Internet users who are
>          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
>          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
>
>Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both regions.  

Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
"citizens *and* residents").
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 05:51:29 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >"Any RALO must through its at-large
> >          structures or through direct membership, be open for
> >          participation of all individual Internet users who are
> >          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> >          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
> >
> >Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both
> regions.
>
> Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
> "citizens *and* residents").
> --
> vb.

Vittorio,
It gets better. As a member of ISOC, I would get another vote to add to my
other two. Are there any other organizations I can join? (I'd like to have
as many votes as possible). Whatever happened to the principle of one person
one vote, or is that just too much to ask?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:14:16 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Thanks for these clarifications, Vittorio

The concern is that in some RALOs, certain organisations may capture the
RALO and "lock out" the individual vote.

ICANN could have insisted on one member - one vote as the basis of running
the RALOs, but I suspect ICANN feared that the RALOs would then be
"captured" by the real members - that is to say, the ordinary individual
internet users.

This remains a "top down" ICANN Board initaitive, which attempts to capture
and contain the At Large movement.

Richard H

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:53:31 -0000, you wrote:

>Vittorio -
>
>How do you see these geographical RALOs self-organising?
>
>If, on the one hand, you have organisations claiming to represent the
>interests of hundreds or thousands, and on the other hand, you also have
>individual users in the RALOs, what procedures do you propose to determine
>the policies, demands and leadership of any given RALO?
>
>If there is no democratic organisation within the RALOs, how do you
>determine policy and viewpoints?
>
>If there *is* to be democratic organisation, how do you balance the votes
of
>individuals against the 'weight' of various-sized organisations?

These are exactly the open questions we have now. In the last weeks
(as reflected in these Bylaws modifications) the prevailing opinion
seems to be that you have to accept organizations as members of the
RALOs, but that relying on individuals with a 1 head = 1 vote
principle is the only reasonable instrument to come out of these
problems - so organizations would mainly act as points of entry and
opinion-makers for the individual membership. But this is just my
opinion.

I encourage all interested people to participate in the process of
formation of the RALOs, as it will be in the RALO's Bylaws that these
issues will be finalized. Our comments to the ERC went in this
direction - ICANN Bylaws should restate the principle that RALOs are
to represent individuals, but how to practically obtain this is to
vary from Region to Region and should be self-decided by the Region
itself.
- --
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:34:52 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

WHOIS details to be held "in reserve" - and only released on the basis of a
complaint backed up by verifiable grounds for release - complainants
otherwise to be entitled to take normal legal resorts to obtain the WHOIS
data.

The verifiable grounds for release to be defined in categories. A small
committee to act as arbiter, financed out of small element in domain name
cost.

Complaints to be accompanied by refundable deposit to deter casual/flippant
actions.

Outcome: access to details still available in serious cases of abuse;
privacy of millions (the vast majority) protected. Cost defrayed by a small
increase of a few cents across all domain names, which would be an
acceptable price to pay for a secure and private system.

Some people would argue: why should I have to pay for my own privacy? But it
could be seen as "part of the product"  - you buy into a more secure and
private commodity.

The only acceptable alternative to me would be a right to "opt out" of WHOIS
publication, via Registrars who offer anonymity and cloaking services,
providing the same principles protected privacy from unverifiable
complaints.

But I think it is more legitimate and more just to spread the cost of
privacy (a very small cost) over the whole industry and across all domain
sales.

Consumers are often told that ICANN does not regulate registrars etc
"because there are legal agencies in each country which uphold consumer
protection". The same could be said in reverse here: consumers should not
have to publish their WHOIS data, "because complainants in each country have
resort to legal agencies which uphold the law".

Just some thoughts to throw in. Bottom line is, why should I have to publish
my private details to the world, and risk disclosure of those details to
people who may either spam me, harrass me, or sell my details on?

My privacy belongs to me.

The decision on its disclosure should be mine too.

regards,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:15 AM
Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

> The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
> WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
> report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
> you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:49:50 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

You're exactly right, Joanna.

ICANN could have written in one-person-one-vote to their RALOs as a
fundamental democratic condition, but they have chosen not to.

Tell me (I address Denise) : if the first act of the RALOs is to demand (a)
one-person-one-vote (b) the right of the RALOs to choose their own leaders
and spokesperson and policies and ways of working... will ICANN accede?

Who is actually running the RALOs: individual internet users or the ICANN
establishment?

If ICANN genuinely wants internet users represented, then clearly each
internet user should be equally represented, through their own vote and
their own right to participate. If ICANN genuinely wants a "bottom up"
process, why do they construct a process which is dependent on nominations,
unelected delegates, and rules which they (ICANN) impose?

This is not to me the "At Large".

This is to me, ICANN creating another process which it can control.

Surely, elected representatives of the At Large on the Board with voting
rights was a far more effective way of giving Internet Users power to
influence the way the DNS is administered. One person one vote is far more
credible.

Why wasn't this fundamental democratic principle written into the ICANN
structure?

Why does the constituency representing hundreds of millions of users get
about the same weighting (but very much less influence) as about 150
registrars who are basically exploiting a supply conduit for their own
profit (which I don't blame them for - everyone tries to make a living - but
why do they get so much disproportionate influence over a commodity which
belongs to hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

The bottom line is that, ultimately, democracy and one member one vote,
implemented right up to Board level, would sweep away the power clique that
seeks to exploit its position for narrow vested interest.

That is why the ICANN establishment had to EXPEL the elected Board members
who represented the huge majority. That's why the ALAC was initiated, to
minimise and contain the influence of the vast user constituency.

What doesn't the ICANN Board understand about the word:

DEMOCRACY ?

yrs,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
To: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:44:54 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >"Any RALO must through its at-large
> > >          structures or through direct membership, be open for
> > >          participation of all individual Internet users who are
> > >          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> > >          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
> > >
> > >Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both
> > regions.
> >
> > Better than having a vote in no region (the original language was
> > "citizens *and* residents").
> > --
> > vb.
>
> Vittorio,
> It gets better. As a member of ISOC, I would get another vote to add to my
> other two. Are there any other organizations I can join? (I'd like to have
> as many votes as possible). Whatever happened to the principle of one
person
> one vote, or is that just too much to ask?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:55:28 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:14:16 -0000, you wrote:

>Thanks for these clarifications, Vittorio
>
>The concern is that in some RALOs, certain organisations may capture the
>RALO and "lock out" the individual vote.
>
>ICANN could have insisted on one member - one vote as the basis of running
>the RALOs, but I suspect ICANN feared that the RALOs would then be
>"captured" by the real members - that is to say, the ordinary individual
>internet users.

This is still something that could be addressed in the MoU between ICANN and
the RALO, to which the Bylaws devolve the practical requirements. As the
ALAC will definitely have a say in this, we might decide to add a "1 head 1
vote" requirement at least where the RALO founding group chooses such
principle. (Ultimately it will be the ICANN Board that approves the MoUs,
but I think that if the ALAC and the RALO agree on a text the Board might be
keen on approving it as it is.)

>This remains a "top down" ICANN Board initaitive, which attempts to capture
>and contain the At Large movement.

I still think that you should judge the mechanism only after it is fully
formed - and that there's plenty of space for influencing it (e.g. see Danny
Younger's initiative).
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:09:03 -0800
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

If the Internet is truly global, and also democratic (which is an inherint
misconception) then one person, one vote.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

> "Any RALO must through its at-large
>           structures or through direct membership, be open for
>           participation of all individual Internet users who are
>           citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
>           Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI)."
>
> Oh that's good. I get to join two RALO's and have a vote in both regions.
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Vittorio
> > Bertola
> > Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 8:21 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
> >
> >
> > Comment to the proposed Bylaws modifications
> > by the At Large Advisory Committee
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > The ALAC has had a limited amount of (email) discussion about the
> > proposed bylaw changes. Although not all ALAC members have addressed
> > this issues, those that have would like to leave the bylaw language
> > concerning At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations as
> > open as possible, with the understanding that details will be
> > addressed in the RALO's MoUs with ICANN, and that the ALAC and ICANN
> > will be responsible for ensuring that the MoU meets basic criteria for
> > involving individual Internet users and advancing their interests
> > within ICANN.
> >
> > While the ALAC wants to make clear and irrevocable that the RALOs and
> > At-Large Structures represent the voices of individuals, not
> > organizations, the Committee does not want a formalism in the bylaws
> > to block participation of groups that genuinely represent individuals
> > but also accept organizational/corporate members.  The ALAC
> > acknowledges that ICANN needs to be mindful of two possible scenarios:
> > an individuals-only policy blocks ISOC chapters and other individual
> > participation, or lack of such a policy permits some company to
> > "organize" an At-Large Structure and capture its RALO.  The ALAC
> > thinks the problem of preventing organizational capture should be left
> > to the RALOs in the first instance; and that too detailed a policy may
> > hamper the groups most effectively representing individuals.
> >
> > In addition to some ISOC chapters, there is concern that some of the
> > groups listed below, which could be considered potential candidates
> > for At-Large Structures, could not fully participate under the
> > proposed bylaws (note: these are hypothetical examples and do not
> > indicate any commitment or interest on the part of these
> > organizations):
> >
> >   a.. Association for Internet Professionals (AIP)
> > (http://www.association.org/) has both individual and corporate
> > memberships
> >   b.. ISOC ECC and CECUA have only organizational members and have
> > asked to be included as At-Large Structures (although it is not clear
> > why they should receive this delegation rather than each of their
> > members being delegated an ALS)
> >   c.. www.stikom.edu - appears to provide individuals with news,
> > education, and community discussion on issues relevant to At-Large,
> > but does not have memberships
> >   d.. LatinoamerICANN (http://www.latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar) is
> > an apendix of the Alfa-Redi Society, which is an international
> > membership-only society of lawyers specializing in computing law
> > (http://www.alfa-redi.org); to members LatinoamerICANN provides
> > information on the DNS and related issues.
> >   e.. Arab Knowledge Management Society (www.akms.org) - non profit
> > education service addressing "digital divide issues" with no
> > memberships
> >   f.. Institute for Study of Information Tech and Society --
> > http://communityconnections.heinz.cmu.edu/insites/about --  nonprofit
> > group for teaching, research and public outreach on information
> > technology policy, has corporate members/supporters
> >   g.. Consumers' Union/Consumer Policy Institute
> > (http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/about.htm) and EPIC (Electronic
> > Privacy Information Center) (http://www.epic.org/) -- have some
> > compatible objectives, involve individuals in their policy development
> > and other activities, and could contribute to ICANN policy/issue
> > debates, but are not membership organizations
> >
> >   With this in mind, the ALAC offers the following draft language for
> > the Committee's consideration:
> >
> >           (h) Each RALO shall be comprised of self-supporting At-Large
> >           Structures within its Geographic Region, certified to meet
> >           the requirements of the RALO's Memorandum of Understanding
> >           with ICANN according to paragraph 4(i) of this Section.  If
> >           so provided by its memorandum of understanding with ICANN, a
> >           RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users
> >           who are citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> >           Geographic Region. Any RALO must, through its at-large
> >           structures or through direct membership, be open for
> >           participation of all individual Internet users who are
> >           citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
> >           Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI).
> >
> >           (i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
> >           meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
> >           The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
> >           Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
> >           established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
> >           ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
> >           that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
> >           characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
> >           stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
> >           the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
> >           At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
> >           individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
> >           the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
> >           de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
> >           criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
> >           members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
> >           to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
> >           give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
> >           meets the applicable criteria and standards.
> >
> > Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
> >
> > The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee
> > --
> > vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> > -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:20:27 -0800
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

Thomas - this biggest issue is why there is a need for privacy for a public
conveyance like an internet address. The whole point of getting a public
address is to be found, and like all mechanisms for being found in the world
today, there is no valid reason to need to register something in the public
view anonymously.

The inherent misconception is that you need a public address to publish on
the Internet. What you need is a Search Engine that is willing to list you
as a IP address and then everything is moot with regard to the need to have
a domain.

The issue is really that the people that this privacy protects are spammers
and not private citizens, they have been duped into believing that their
privacy is a reality on the Internet and it simply is not true. The only
issue in moving forward is how much money someone that want to know about
you or what you are up to is willing to spend to find out.

So the real issue in making WHOIS private is whether the Registrars are
willing to take financial culpability for any and all damages that any of
their "private clients" do and if they are - then fine. Otherwise the
problem is also moot since the first time it gets to court it will likely ve
struck down.

Just my 2 cents,
Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

> The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
> WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
> report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
> you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:17:16 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2DBF6.49B917E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thomas:

We spoke in Berlin a couple of weeks ago about this topic. My strong
preference is a tiered access approach. I was working on a paper to submit
in conjunction with the upcoming ITU conference but was unable to meet the
deadline :-( Until I complete this paper I will defer on the specifics of my
tiered access approach other that to state that at one end of the spectrum
it would provide government/law enforcement broad access to combat crime and
other illegal activities. A mid tier approach would provide registrars and
intellectual property attorneys qualified access for use of the data in
connection with specific activities (xfers, cyberquatting), then there would
be the lowest tier which would be for average users with min. information.

My personal opinion is that although the Whois Task Force should be
commended for its work to date and its acknowledgement of this important
issue, I believe it should strongly consider commissioning a new task force
with new blood and the appropriate skill set to handle this issue of
privacy. I have gained a heightened sense of this issue from my European
colleagues, including yourself.

The issue of data privacy is a legal matter involving national laws. So my
recommendation would be to defer this brain storming session until the Task
Force could obtain a representative from the European Commission, as well as
some other highly qualified individuals (yourself included) that actually
understand and appreciate the differences between EU and US national law.

One of the things that I have generally found lacking in most of the
discussions to date on this subject matter is a failure to analyze the
underlying national laws and their scope. I gave a presentation to the
registrar/registry constituency this past Friday in DC during a joint
meeting. My purpose was to help educate registration authorities on both
sides of the pond on the different perspectives on the same issue. This was
a revision/mark-up of a presentation that I gave to the American
Intellectual Property Law Association last month at their mid-year meeting.
I have attached a pdf copy (75k) for anyone wishing to review it. As always
I welcome any constructive feedback.

To date I have generally heard two extremes in the Whois debate, with no one
seeking a middle ground that would potentially address the concerns of all
participants in the debate. If you would like I could make myself available
during tomorrow's call to help in the discussion.

Keep up the good work.

Best regards,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> Roessler
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.
>
>
> The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
> WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
> report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
> you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler
> <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2DBF6.49B917E0
Content-Type: application/pdf;
	name="database-dataprivacy.PDF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="database-dataprivacy.PDF"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2DBF6.49B917E0--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1608
*************************