- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response
by At-Large Staff Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Dear all, Seven out of 15 ALAC Members have voted in the recent vote on the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report, therefore the quorum was not reached. Number of voters: 7· Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67% ³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² Yes (85.71%) (Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Cheryl Landon-Orr) No (14.29%) (Carlos Aguirre) Abstain (0.00%) You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=eTuRkbjiyZCk2DRJXXAU When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: Alan Greenberg Vanda Scartezini Fatimata Seye Sylla Hawa Diakite Mohamed El Bashir Jose Ovidio Salgueiro Vivek Vivekandan Thu Hue Nguyen Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Date
by At-Large Staff Jan. 6, 2009

Jan. 6, 2009

Dear all, The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, which was requested by the ALAC is now available in the five UN languages under http://gnso.icann.org/policies/. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
by At-Large Staff Dec. 24, 2008

Dec. 24, 2008

Dear ALAC members, A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day. You will be asked to choose among the following options: 1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Results of the first vote on the RAA Package
by At-Large Staff Dec. 24, 2008

Dec. 24, 2008

Dear all, With 10 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the vote on the RAA Package, we can confirm that the vote is quorate: Number of voters: 10 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 66.67 ³ICANN staff has told the GNSO that the only way that the current RAA package of amendments can be approved is if they pass a super-majority (66%) vote accepting the package. If it is not approved, any future policy development must be done over using current PDP processes. Some of the issues covered by the package, such as enforcement and accreditation are not likely to be considered in scope for a PDP. Please choose one of the following options:² 70.00% 1 ) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time that the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff. ( J Ovidio Salgueiro, P Vande Walle, S Bachollet, R Guerra, F Seye Sylla, TH Nguyen, C Langdon-Orr) 20.00% 2 ) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. (A Greenberg, A Peake) 10.00% 3) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. (B Brendler) 0.00% 4) Abstain 0 0.00 You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=w6iazAxzpvfT4cqTQkbc Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Holiday Closure
by Denise Michel Dec. 23, 2008

Dec. 23, 2008

Greetings. ICANN offices will be closed between Christmas and New Years. Specifically, Policy Staff will be on vacation from noon on 24 December through 2 January 2009. Best wishes. Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy

1 0

MP3 of Second Consultation on Registry/Registrar Report 19 December 2008
by At-Large Staff Dec. 22, 2008

Dec. 22, 2008

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat ************************************ Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Second Consultation on Registry/Registrar CRA International report titled, "Revisiting Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars" held on Friday, 19 December 2008. http://audio.icann.org/crai-teleconference-20081219.mp3 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-15dec08-en.htm Second Consultation on Registry/Registrar Report this Friday 15 December 2008 Responding to community requests for additional dialogue about the requirements for the separation of gTLD registries and registrars, ICANN posted a 9 December announcement about two open consultations on the CRA International report titled, "Revisiting Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars" [PDF, 493K]. The first consultation occurred in Washington, DC on 11 December 2008, and the MP3 recording of that can be found here. http://audio.icann.org/crai-teleconference-20081211.mp3 The second consultation is scheduled for Friday, 19 December in Marina del Rey, CA from 10am-noon (PST) / 18:00-20:00 (UTC). The consultation will be hosted near ICANN's office and remote participation will again be available. If you plan to attend in person or call in for this meeting, please RSVP to crai-report-consultation(a)icann.org by 18 December and the hotel address and dial-in information will be emailed to you. This session also will be recorded and an MP3 recording will be publicly posted. In addition, a summary of the comments and proposed models for registry agreement terms that describe registry-registrar separation requirements will be published. http://audio.icann.org/crai-teleconference-20081219.mp3 While the short notice period has made it difficult for some to participate, remote participation facilities have been made available and support received for the Washington, DC and Marina del Rey, CA meetings has been excellent. To ensure broad opportunity for comment, there will be additional consultations that will be arranged by ICANN staff. Comments on the CRAI report are welcome via email to crai-report(a)icann.org. Because the comment period on this document is scheduled to conclude today and it is anticipated that the session on Friday will result in additional comment, the comment period will be extended until 0:00 UTC, 23 December 2008. Comments are reported at http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/. Thank you. Happy listening and happy holidays! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

INVITATION: RAA Briefing on Monday, 22 December 2000 UTC
by At-Large Staff Dec. 22, 2008

Dec. 22, 2008

Dear all Tim Cole, Chief Registrar Liaison, agreed to participate in a discussion on the RAA and answer your questions regarding the issues surrounding the modification of the RAA. The teleconference is scheduled on Monday, 22 December from 2000 UTC to 2100 UTC. Please find participation instructions under: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?how_can_i_participate_in_this_meeti ng If there is interest for French or Spanish interpretation for this meeting, please contact us as soon as possible. Please note, however, that we can not guarantee interpretation for this meeting due to time constraints. Further Information on the recent RAA developments: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?raa_the_way_forward (prepared by Alan Greenberg, ALAC GNSO Liaison) Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 1

Vote on the updated ALAC Response now open
by At-Large Staff Dec. 22, 2008

Dec. 22, 2008

Dear ALAC members, The ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on ALAC Review has recently been updated. The ALAC Chair decided to stop the previous vote on the ALAC response and to restart an online vote on the updated document, which you can find attached to this email. The question to be put is: ³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² With possible answers: Yes No Abstain You will shortly receive a separate email with your voting credentials. Due to the Holidays and the many seasonal commitments of some of the ALAC members, the Chair extended the vote until the January 5th, 2009 at 2350 UTC. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ALAC vote on the ALAC response to the ALAC Review report now open
by At-Large Staff Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Dear all, The ALAC vote on the the ALAC response on the Board Governance Committee Working Group mid-point consultation report on ALAC review is now open. Due to the holidays, the ALAC Vice Chair decided to extend the voting period until December 31st at 2559 UTC. The ALAC members will receive a separate email with their voting credentials shortly. The question to be put will be: ³Would you like to endorse the 'ALAC Response to the BGC WG mid-point consultation report on ALAC Review' as an official ALAC Statement?² With possible answers: Yes No Abstain The ALAC Response to the mid point consultation was drafted by the ALAC ExCom. It incorporates the views expressed by community members in Cairo and the reactions received from the RALOs. You can download a PDF version of the ALAC Response under: http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfqEF1JejEF4.pdf Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Advisory: Add Grace Period Limits Policy ICANN announces implementation plan for new consensus policy
by At-Large Staff Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Message forwarded from the GNSO Secretariat ******************************************* http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17dec08-en.htm Advisory: Add Grace Period Limits Policy ICANN announces implementation plan for new consensus policy 17 December 2008 ICANN is today announcing the implementation plan for the new Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy adopted by the ICANN Board on 26 June 2008. A grace period is a specified number of calendar days following a gTLD registry operation in which the operation may be reversed and a credit may be issued to a Registrar. AGP is typically the five-day period following the initial registration of a domain name. Currently, when a domain name is registered through a registrar, that registrar may delete the domain name at any time during the first five calendar days of the registration (the AGP) and receive a full credit for the registration fee from the registry operator. AGP appears as a contractual term in some, but not all gTLD registry agreements. Posted here is the AGP Limits Policy and the implementation plan. The plan specifies that gTLD Operators (hereinafter referred to as "Operators") must inform each of their accredited Registrars of the new Policy within the next 21 days and subsequently implement the Policy as soon as possible thereafter but no later than 31 March 2009. The new AGP Limits Policy is based on a detailed recommendation made by the GNSO Council to the Board earlier this year and provides that Operators who offer an AGP to their customers will now be prohibited from making refunds to registrars for AGP deletes that exceed the threshold limits set by the Policy. The limits defined by the Policy are (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations (calculated as the total number of net adds of one-year through ten-year registrations as defined in the monthly reporting requirement of Operator Agreements) in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater, unless an exemption is requested by a Registrar and subsequently granted by an Operator. While Operators will initially have significant flexibility on how to treat such requests, ICANN Staff will monitor the process closely and modifications will be recommended if any additional patterns of abusive behavior are detected. The implementation plan is the result of extensive public deliberations which were part of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on domain tasting, outreach to Operators and ICANN-accredited Registrars, and public comment on a draft implementation plan. The plan includes significant changes to the reporting obligations of Operators. Operators will now be required to submit as part of their monthly reporting requirement information for each Registrar including, but not limited to, the number of exemption requests, number of exemptions granted, numbers of names affected by granted exemption requests and number of AGP deletes if this information is not currently defined in the Operator's monthly reporting requirement. Additionally, the monitoring requirements in the plan require ICANN to publish status reports on the implementation effort which will include a review of all exemption requests and their disposition, names of registrars that have recurring requests for exemptions and the reasons for these exemptions as well as other information defined in the plan. The recent announcement to the ICANN Community on 13 November 2008 reported that AGP deletes decreased by 84% from June to July 2008 as a result of the related AGP budget provision adopted by the Board for fiscal year 2009. The budget provision has the same thresholds as the AGP Limits Policy. The AGP Limits Policy will carry a much higher financial penalty (i.e., the domain name registration fee paid by Registrars to Operators) than the budget provision (i.e., the current registrar-level transaction fee of US$0.20) for excessive AGP deletes. It is expected that following implementation of the Policy, AGP deletes will continue to decline until few or none are subject to excess delete fees. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0