RALO formation update

by Jacqueline Morris on June 25, 2007

The NARALO has agreed its MoU, and this will be signed on Thursday. The RALO has voted for its two ALAC members, and they are Beau Brendler from the USA (1 year term) and Robert Guerra from Canada (2 year term). They will take up their positions at the end of the MoU signing on Thursday.

When this final MoU is singed, the “Interim ALAC” will no longer exist, and it will finally become the ALAC per the ByLaws.

This has been a long and arduous process, and this is not the end, but the beginning.

Now we have to work to get the regions involved in the policy processes of ICANN. We need the ALSes and their members to consider carefully the issues that are on the table at ICANN, for example registrant protection issues, IDNs, DNSSEC, among others, and gather the feedback from the individual Internet users in their regions so that it can be considered by ICANN in the policy processes.


Danny Younger 07.08.07 at 1:46 pm


When the LACRALO MOU was signed in Sao Paulo, it was subject to final Board approval following a public comment period. Those that wished to comment on the MOU were advised of the opportunity by way of a formal ICANN Public Announcement.

I regret to state that I have not seen on the ICANN website the formal public comment period regarding the NARALO MOU that should have preceded final Board approval. Are North Americans not entitled to the same procedures that were provided to the Latin American community?

Kieren McCarthy 07.09.07 at 12:25 am

Danny, it states quite clearly in the Board resolution in San Juan that: “The execution of the agreement on ICANN’s part contingent upon final approval by the ICANN Board following completion of the public comment period…”

So that answers your main point. (And I think you should consider apologising to Jacqueline for suggesting that there was somehow a conscious rights-restriction on the part of ALAC.)

As to why it isn’t up already, I’m pretty sure that’s because a number of senior ICANN execs were on leave last week and so the required authorisation for posting a public comment period on the ICANN website could not be found without disrupting them.

Since the public comment period will be the same length of time regardless of when it is created, and since the comment period will be launched through a formal announcement, no-one is going to be disadvantaged.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Danny Younger 07.09.07 at 4:36 pm

Kieren, having watched the formal MOU signing by ICANN Management, the above-cited Board resolution rings hollow. We have witnessed a fait accompli, a done deal that signals ICANN’s continuing disregard for due process procedures such as timely advance Notice and Comment. Can you name any other organization, anywhere. that signs an MOU with pomp and
circumstance and then puts the subject matter up for comment later?

Kieren McCarthy 07.10.07 at 1:43 am

What a load of utter nonsense. The NARALO has been openly under discussion for I don’t know how many months – as you know only too well having participated in many of the meetings.

The NARALO has not one but two dedicated webpages to its formation – one on an ICANN wiki, and another on the independent ICANNwiki site. Both were created in December 2006 – more than six months ago.

The discussions have been extensive and wide open – and there has already been at least one public comment period. I also sat in part of an open meeting during the final formation of the RALO in San Juan and there were alot of people in the room having a free and open discussion about the RALO. Others had dialled in.

Many of those people then sat up on stage in public and signed a piece of paper forming the RALO.

It is clear that for whatever reason you would prefer the NARALO not to exist. Unfortunately for you, a significant number of people disagree.

One of those people is a man called Beau Brendler, who was elected by the RALO to join the ALAC committee. Beau works for the Consumers Union and represents seven million consumers in the US and Canada. How many people do you represent, Danny?

I think it is perhaps worth reiterating here that the At Large Advisory Committee’s purpose is to represent the interests of *all* Internet users – not just those that have followed ICANN for years.

I don’t mind people disagreeing but this is the second time on this post alone that you have willfully misrepresented the reality of the situation.

This blog exists for the community to raise genuine concerns and to respond to information emanating from ICANN and ICANN processes. Please desist from your strange form of misinformation.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Danny Younger 07.10.07 at 3:55 am

Kieren, while I applaud your skill at ad hominem attack, let’s get back to the issue. Formal Notice and Comment was not afforded to the broader North American internet community — you have admitted that the MOU has not been formally posted by ICANN for comment in advance of the signing ceremony. An ICANNwiki webpage is no substitute for this requisite Accountability Mechanism.

The community has general concerns regarding ICANN’s Accountability. My posts have highlighted one part of the problem — the lack of respect for proper Notice and Comment obligations on the part of ICANN Management. The failure to post the NARALO MOU for comment is but one example… perhaps you can point me to where ICANN posted the formal Comment Period covering the ICANN/IANA – IETF Memorandum of Understanding Supplement Agreement? I guess that senior ICANN execs have been too busy for the last six months to deal with this as well…

At least in the U.S. we have the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)to guide us and remind us of the value of proper Notice and Comment. Perhaps when we discuss Accountability mechanisms in LA you can arrange for the USG to organize a workshop entitled “An Accountability Framework for ICANN”. I have no doubt that many would attend.

Kieren McCarthy 07.10.07 at 4:39 am

Okay, let’s come to an understanding: if you stop posting heavily slanted and/or misleading posts and simply list what precise issues you have, I will do my best to fix them.

So, what are the issues here?

1. You want the comment period for the NARALO MoU opened. Fine. I will send some emails today and make sure people get onto it. As I explained earlier it is because of authorisation rather than some ill-defined plan to control matters.

2. What is this ICANN/IANA issue you’re raising? Give me a link or URL and explain why it should have a comment period and I’ll get onto it.

I will say that one of the jobs I am trying to get onto is to restructure the way the comment period issue is dealt with internally and externally.

As I wrote into the Accountability and Transparency Management Operating Principles, I am going to set up a single webpage that lists exactly what ICANN is seeking comment on at a particular time, plus provide information and summaries on previous comment periods.

This is a big job though. I spent about six hours on it trying to get such a page up before the San Juan meeting and still only completed under a half of it.

ICANN has too many comment periods and they are too poorly structured, but it’s a hell of a job trying to build a new structure that will work.

My ultimate hope is that people will be able to specify their interest in particular elements of ICANN’s work and then will be automatically notified when something happens in that area.

Wrt a comment period, people that then go to the trouble of commenting will be informed periodically what is going on and then be automatically sent the summary of comments at the end of the comment period.

My hope beyond that is to devise a system that enables comments to be tagged and so traced through the ICANN system. But this is all pie-in-the-sky at the moment. I’m still working 100 other, more urgent things.

I welcome all offers to help…


Danny Younger 07.10.07 at 8:07 am

Kieren, thanks for your reply. The link requested:

The above is an updated agreement supplementing the Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF and ICANN — it is listed on your “Major Agreements” page and to the best of my knowledge did not enjoy a public comment period either.

I believe that the public is entitled to consistency from ICANN — MOUs, for example should all be preceded by a comment period; comment periods should be of a uniform length whenever possible; and if ICANN commits to translations (such as the promised translation of the Budget into Chinese), voting shouldn’t be initiated until such time as translations have been completed, and the language-group has had an opportunity to reply.

Kieren McCarthy 07.10.07 at 8:51 am

Okay, cheers, I’ll get onto it and get back either with a comment period or an explanation as to why there wasn’t one.

Re: consistency. Yes. That’s why there is a line in the draft management operating principles, in the Consultation Principles: “Except where Bylaws stipulate otherwise, ensure the minimum time for a comment period will be 21 days.”

And yes, exactly, re: translation. That’s why there is a line in the draft translation principles which reads: “If it is not possible to arrange the release of particular documents in the agreed languages at the same time, then each language will be provided with the same time period in which to make comments.”


Nick Ashton-Hart 07.10.07 at 9:28 am

Most of the RALO MoUs were signed, with the final approval of the board contingent upon the conclusion of a public comment period. Nothing is being done differently than has previously been done for other regions.

Kieren McCarthy 07.12.07 at 2:59 am


FYI the open comment period for the NARALO went up yesterday. You’ll have to forgive me – I’ve not yet chased the other issue you raised. Will do so today.

Link to NARALO public comment announcement: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11jul07.htm


Kieren McCarthy 07.19.07 at 4:32 am

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this Danny. My fault, I had the information on Friday but have been caught up with other stuff.

This post is regarding an agreement between the IETF and ICANN/IANA.

The agreement you refer to, and for which you asked if there was an appropriate period of public review, is a continuation of a memorandum of understanding signed between the IETF and ICANN/IANA in 2000. The changes in question were alterations to a service level agreement that forms part of the MoU.

The changes were put out for public review by the IETF’s Administrative Director on 26 June 2006 (see here). There were, I understand, several revisions as a result of this, with each revision posted on the IETF website.

The issue was raised in two IETF plenaries and in at least one main presentation at an ICANN meeting. Any queries about the issue directed to ICANN/IANA were redirected to the IETF and its discussions. Discussions were concluded in October 2006 and the ICANN Board voted on the issue in December 2006.

It is ICANN’s position that since the agreement was supplemental and did not change any aspect of the MoU itself, that there wasn’t a need for a distinct ICANN comment period. Moreover it was felt from day one that the most appropriate place for discussion was the IETF. The IETF followed its rules in this regard and the issue was given a wide and clear public comment period during which time input was received and changes made as a result.

I hope this answers your query.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Densis 07.25.07 at 5:35 am

[b]AOL gains, Google loses in Nielsen metrics change[/b]

A new ranking methodology at Nielsen/NetRatings gives AOL a boost while disadvantaging Google.

Nielsen/NetRatings this week made a change to its metrics for ranking the most popular Web sites. It will now focus on the amount of time people spend on a site instead of just the unique audience. This move benefits sites with services like instant messaging and e-mail over sites that offer quicker activities such as search.

Using the new total-minutes calculation, AOL is ranked as the most popular Web site in May in the U.S., followed by Yahoo; MSN/Windows Live; Fox Interactive, which owns MySpace.com; Google; eBay; Microsoft; Electronic Arts; Apple and YouTube, which is owned by Google.

Under the unique-audience calculation, the top 10 list looks like this: Google Yahoo, MSN/Windows Live, Microsoft, AOL, Fox, eBay, YouTube, Wikipedia and Apple.

Fox’s MySpace, Google’s YouTube and eBay have loyal and engaged users, while Microsoft’s Windows Media Player and Apple’s iTunes helped those rankings, Nielsen/NetRatings said. Electronic Arts broke into the top 10 based on total minutes because of the popularity of its Pogo.com gaming site.

Web sites are increasingly offering services that keep a user on a site for longer, and measurement firms are looking at user “engagement” metrics more and more. The widespread adoption of streaming audio and video, which provides dynamically changing content within a single page or media player, and applications like Ajax, have diminished the importance of measuring page views.

On Thursday, I’ll take a broader look at what industry insiders think about this change and what impact it may have on advertising.

EXAMPLE: Google not read tips, and NOT in cache, tihis sites :cranky:


AND Dramatical FINISH SEO-GAIS! :mad: :cry:

Comments on this entry are closed.