November 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Thanksgiving
by Vanda Scartezini UOL Nov. 27, 2008

Nov. 27, 2008

Dear friends To all of you thanksgiving is an important date, I wish a peaceful day with the warm presence of all you love! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda(a)uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor."

1 0

Motions with respect to the Ex-Com
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 26, 2008

Nov. 26, 2008

Here are formally worded motions which I believe capture the intent of the discussion at the meeting just ended. If I have erred, please correct. Alan ----------- Whereas the ALAC has had a de facto an Executive Committee composed of ALAC Officers for the past year; Whereas, it is at times necessary for the ALAC to take action without sufficient time to formally engage the entire ALAC and hold a vote; Therefore I move that: 1. The ALAC create a 4-member Executive Committee composed of the four ALAC Officers. Until such time as a more refined specification be defined, the Executive Committee shall have no powers other than those explicitly granted by the ALAC, save that in urgent situations, the Executive Committee may make decisions on behalf of the ALAC, such decisions communicated to the ALAC prior to or at the time of decision, and to be ratified at the next ALAC meeting. ----------------------- Whereas last year's de facto Executive Committee included Officers from four or the five ICANN regions; Whereas this present year's Officers represent four of the five ICANN regions; Whereas in keeping with ALAC and ICANN principles, it is felt that there is a benefit in all five regions participating in an Executive Committee; Therefore I move that: 1. The ALAC expand the Executive Committee to five people. The Executive Committee shall be composed of the four ALAC Officers and one additional ALAC member. 2. The ALAC redefine the two positions of Vice-Chair and the position of Rapporteur, and the associated voting processes to ensure that the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, and the Rapporteur all represent different ICANN regions, the detailed Rules of Procedures to be approved prior to the 2009 Officer elections; 3. Following the election of the four officers, the ALAC shall nominate and elect an ALAC member from the as-yet un-represented ICANN region to the fifth Executive Committee position.

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Se vi interessa un guadagno extra ...
by alac＠icann.org Nov. 26, 2008

Nov. 26, 2008

1 0

RAA
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

Over the past day, there has been a discussion about steps forward with respect to the RAA amendments on the NA-discuss list as well as the ALAC list. There has also been at least some mis-information. I have tried to summarize the current situation in preparation for tomorrow's ALAC teleconference. Please see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?raa_the_way_forward for details. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

I don't think that was what I was saying at all. For the record, no such thing was decided. I can point you to the MP3 and you can see for yourself. In fact, we explicitly did not decide anything at that time. The GNSO has been told that they have a binary decision to be made (this is my wording, not that of ICANN staff). Endorse the proposed RAA amendments by a 2/3 vote, or not. Regardless of that decision, the policy process can be started on RAA-related issues. The policy process starts with an Issues Report and can then lead to a full-blown PDP. Some aspects of the proposed RAA amendments could be addressed through the PDP process. Some might be deemed to be contractual issues and out of scope. If out of scope, the GNSO can STILL do a PDP, but there is a much higher threshold required to do so. Alan At 24/11/2008 11:41 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >Opening this discussion up to the broader ALAC, hope no one minds. > >Adding to this: I was recently told by a reliable source that during >an early November GNSO council wrap-up it was basically agreed there >would be no further RAA review or negotiations in the foreseeable future. > >Which I guess is sort of what you are saying. I think that may mean >we need to initiate a PDP if we believe that the current amendments >are not sufficient as is. Also, someone clarified that ICANN does >keep registrar contact data for emergencies, but it includes things >like the home addresses of CEOs, so there may be some trouble with >releasing that -- also, apparently, the registrars have said they >won't agree to any Web site contact data requirement. > >So if we believe that this requirement is important enough we should >initiate a PDP or whatever bureaucratic step is necessary. It would >seem, given the comments from users to the RAA-WG list, that the >user community believes disclosure of the transparency information >is very important. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:30 AM >To: Brendler, Beau; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; Robert Guerra >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > >Thanks beau. > >Regarding the "one minor nuance", my belief is that if the GNSO does >anything other than to approve the current amendment package (that >is, if they start discussing the merits of particular issues) there >is no chance of a fast-path approach, everything would potentially >be on the table, and we are back at square-one in terms of timing >and agreements. If we don't touch the current package I think there >is a possibility that (as implied by ICANN legal staff) the GNSO can >ratify the proposed amendments and it is a done-deal. > >Note that I do not really understand why we (the GNSO) can accept >this package by simply ratifying but would need to initiate a >full-fledged PDP if we re-open the entire discussion, but that is >what I think I heard, and as I understand it, both ICANN legal >counsel and (at least some) registrars have agreed on this position >(because the definition of Consensus Policy was not linked to the >current PDP process at the time the registrars's agreement was first >signed). It will be further discussed at the December GNSO meeting. > >Alan > > > >At 24/11/2008 11:10 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote: > >One minor nuance here is that I think there was some agreement among > >members of the ALAC that we should try to, basically, fast-track an > >amendment to the existing RAA amendments that would require registrars > >to provide basic business information (address, contact information, > >physical location, etc.) I reference, for instance, the letter below > >from Mark Parker as an example. > > > >Towards the end of the ALAC meeting with registrars in Cairo, a member > >of ICANN staff whose name I did not catch, who I think is based in > >Belgium, noted that this information already exists and is kept on > >record by ICANN (?) Perhaps we could get some memory refreshment here > >from Matthias or Nick so that we can determine whether we need to > >advocate loudly and quickly to add this transparency requirement as an > >amendment, or whether we need to make this before-unheard-of data more > >available to the user community. > > > >As for the broader question about the RAA amendments themselves, we did > >provide a fairly detailed statement that the ALAC signed off on in > >September. I believe Alan's comment: "The position that I have taken > >within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA > >changes put in place immediately (since sooner would require a Wayback > >machine with more functionality than our current one). And that needs > >to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA review, preferable in > >reasonable chunks so that the entire review/revision does not get > >bogged down until the next millennium," > >is accurate of where we left things with the RAA. If not, we should > >figure that out now, it sounds like. > > > >Beau > > > >(example letter follows) > > > >Dear ICANN RAA Consultation Staff, > > > >I am writing to you to request a change in the Registrar Accreditation > >Agreement that will improve transparency and accountability. It has > >come to my attention as an Internet user that there is no requirement > >in the standard Registrar contract to that requires public disclosure > >of Registrar ownership or location. I am concerned that this loophole > >in the agreement opens the door to fraud, secrecy and consumer abuse. > >Please consider adding the following language or equivalent to the RAA: > > > >*"All Accredited Registrars must submit main office location, including > >country, to be publicly disclosed in ICANN web directory. > >Post Office boxes, Incorporation addresses, and mail-forwarding > >locations will not be acceptable. Registrars must also provide for > >public display the name of CEO or President. ICANN must be notified > >within 30 days of a location or presiding officer change."* > > > >Without public disclosure there cannot be true transparency, > >accountability or trust. I appreciate your consideration. > > > >Sincerely, Mark Parker > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] > >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:00 AM > >To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; Robert Guerra; Brendler, Beau > >Cc: NA Discuss > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > >Danny, my understanding was that there was general belief that the > >proposed RAA amendments were woefully inadequate and incomplete, but > >that in their own right, they would be useful. Since your 2nd questions > >focuses on finding out why the Board has not already taken the > >unilateral paths that you believe viable to enact the revised RAA, I > >would assume that you support this position. > > > >The position that I have taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to > >see the already agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since > >sooner would require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our > >current one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA > >review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire > >review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium. > > > >If you or others feel that this is not a reasonable position to take, > >please provide specific guidance. > > > >Alan > > > >At 24/11/2008 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > >Alan, > > > > > >As I, and doubtless others, have no idea what position the ALAC has > > >adopted with respect to the RAA amendments, could we trouble you to > > >articulate the official position, and the specific actions that the > > >ALAC will support in the GNSO? > > > > > >Many of us have major issues with a lot of the amendments and we > > >don't want to see these put through on a blanket basis. It's bad > > >enough that Staff is in bed with the registrars; we don't need to > > >have the ALAC pushing an ill-considered program that gives the > > >registrars everything that they want while the views of the rest of > > >the community are routinely ignored. > > > > > >Danny > > > > > >--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" > > > <lists(a)privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> > > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:19 AM Although not answering > > > > any of Danny's questions (but acknowledging where were are today > > > > with the RAA amendments being punted to the GNSO), I do note that > > > > as ALAC Liaison, I am taking what I hope will be successful action > > > > to fast-path the first round of RAA amendments through the GNSO > > > > and forwarded to the Board for quick approval. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 24/11/2008 07:14 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > >Dear North American reps to the ALAC: > > > > > > > > > >The entire point of having a RALO is so that grassroots > > > > input may be > > > > >brought to the attention of the ALAC. There were > > > > several items that > > > > >I raised that have not made it onto the ALAC Agenda for > > > > tomorrow's meeting: > > > > > > > > > >1. the failure to inaugurate a comprehensive review of > > > > registrar > > > > >accreditation processes > > > > >2. a request for a formal explanation from ICANN Staff > > > > as to why > > > > >(1) invoking the amendments and waivers clause in the > > > > RAA may not be > > > > >pursued and (2) why an updated RAA agreement may not be > > > > substituted. > > > > >As both of these options are permitted by contract, we > > > > need to know > > > > >why Staff has chosen not to pursue this viable course > > > > of action. > > > > >3. a response to users that have posted comments to > > > > the RAA-WG. > > > > > > > > > >As reps for the NARALO you have a duty to raise the > > > > issues that have > > > > >been brought forth by the membership and to place these > > > > issues on > > > > >the agenda if they merit discussion, otherwise there is > > > > no point > > > > >whatsoever in having these RALO structures or an ALAC. > > > > > > > > > >see my orginal comments at > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i > > > cann.org/2008q4/004938.html > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i > > > cann.org/2008q4/004939.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > > > > >NA-Discuss mailing list > > > > >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg > > > e-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > > > >------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >*** > >Scanned > > > >** > >This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) > >named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any > >attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not > >the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute > >or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all > >or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in > >error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and > >permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer > >system. > > >*** >Scanned > >** >This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) >named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any >attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are >not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, >redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, >or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received >this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply >e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from >your computer system.

1 0

At-Large representatives to cross-community Working Group on Geographic Regions
by At-Large Staff Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

Dear Members, In response to Board resolutions 2008.11.07.08 and 2008.11.07.09 (attached below) the At-Large community is being asked to provide representatives to the Working Group on Geographic Regions. The ALAC is expected to address this issue in its teleconference of tomorrow; those interested in being one of the representatives may wish to let the ALAC know of the interest ASAP. ---- ICANN Board Resolution on Community-Wide Working Group to Review ICANN's Geographic Regions http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm#_Toc87682556 Resolved (2008.11.07.08), the Board authorizes the formation of a community-wide working group to study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, consult with all stakeholders, and submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The Board requests that all interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees nominate two individuals to serve on the working group, the composition of which the Board would like to approve at the December Board meeting. Resolved (2008.11.07.09), the Board requests the working group, as its first order of business, to draft and seek community input on a proposed charter, and submit the draft document for community review, and Board consideration and approval at the March 2009 Board meeting in Mexico City. In drafting the charter, the working group is directed to focus, but not limit, its work on the criteria for assigning countries, dependencies and recognized geopolitical entities to a Geographic Region, and to take into consideration the relevant ccNSO Board paper, the recent GNSO comments, and other community advice - including the GAC's original advice on the topic in 2000 <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/gac/communique-14jul00.htm. Further, the Board directs ICANN Staff to support these efforts. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2

geographical diversity
by carlos aguirre Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

Dear All: This topic was touched in Cairo at Open Forum and I believe is neccesary (like said Norbert Klein) more discussion about it. http://public.icann.org/en/node/2007 ICANN's geographical diversity Submitted by YoungEum on Thu, 2008-11-06 11:26. This is the text of my comment during the Cairo public forum. ICANN's core value #4 focuses on geographic and cultural diversity at all levels of policy development and decision-making. This value has been repeatedly emphasized in the DoC's midterm review of the JPA as well. I would first like to acknowledge the efforts of ICANN to adhere to this value by adopting the geographical diversity principle to its board and various committees as well as the decision to hold the meetings in a rotating fashion in the five geographical regions. At the same time, however, I would like to point out some areas which I believe requires continued effort in this area, specifically, in the distribution of ICANN staff. According to the figures in the ICANN site, out of the 73 staff members, there are NO members from Latin America, 4 from Africa , 13 from Europe, and 45, or 62% of staff members, are from the North American region, of which 41 are from the United States. In the case of the AP region, 6 staff members are from Australia, 1 from the Middle East, and 4 are from the rest of Asia. And although I think that the ccNSO chair, Chris Disspain, the President of ICANN, Paul Twoomey, and a significant member of the Board, Bruce Tonkin, all from Australia, and ICANN board chair, Peter DT, from New Zealand are doing a fabulous job and I have only the highest admiration for them, and personally have the warmest feelings especially for Peter and Chris, I would hesitate to fully agree that the truly Asian perspective, which constitutes 40% of all Internet Users in the world, is represented by their presence on those important positions. I would like to point out that in terms of geographical diversity, ICANN still has some way to go in terms of reflecting the truly Asian perspective and would like to publicly make an appeal to ICANN to consider this in the future, for example, in..... Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org _________________________________________________________________

2 1

Fwd: Nov 25, ALAC monthly call - Agenda?
by Adam Peake Nov. 23, 2008

Nov. 23, 2008

Please, could the agenda be sent to the At Large list. The rules of procedure require the agenda to be posted 7 days before the call, this has not happened. The community should be able to see the agenda and offer comment on it. I want to have this information updated and in my mail box, not on a wiki (<https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?25_november_2008>). I'd like to add two items to the agenda: (1) How we share information, ALAC should make more use of email lists as the means of sharing information about meetings, agendas, votes etc. (2) Summit. Following up on comments during the meeting in Cairo, send a request to all ALS who responded to the summit questionnaire asking them for information about their organization, what they do, etc. This to be used for a poster session and also on the ALAC site as an introduction page for individual ALS. At the moment there's no easy source of information about ALS. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:08:36 +0900 >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: Nov 25, ALAC monthly call - Agenda? >X-BeenThere: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >List-Id: At-Large Advisory Committee > <alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org.atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/options/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > <mailto:alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=unsubscribe> >List-Archive: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Post: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Help: <mailto:alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > <mailto:alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe> >Sender: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Has the agenda been published? > >Could we please have it posted (i.e. email) in good time before the >meeting. We're inside the 7 day window. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >>Delivered-To: ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp >>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:37:10 +0900 >>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >>Subject: [ALAC] Nov 25, ALAC monthly call - Agenda? >>X-BeenThere: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>List-Id: At-Large Advisory Committee >> <alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org.atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>List-Unsubscribe: >><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/options/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>, >> <mailto:alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>List-Archive: >><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>List-Post: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>List-Help: <mailto:alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=help> >>List-Subscribe: >><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>, >> <mailto:alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe> >>Sender: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>Hi, >> >>Has the agenda for next week's monthly meeting been published? >> >>Are there any ALS applications we need to review, vote on etc? >> >>Could we please have reminders about the call, including agenda and >>dial-in numbers sent to ALAC list. >> >>Apologies if I missed any email about this, server glitch and I >>lost a lot of messages over the past week. >> >>Many thanks, >> >>Adam >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

My job description
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 20, 2008

Nov. 20, 2008

As you all know, I have taken on the role of ALAC Rapporteur. According to our Rules of Procedure, the role is defined as "An independent critical friend; a person acting as a monitor to processes, who is responsible on behalf of the committee to ensure correct process have been carried out." Since this description is pretty open, I have put together a short list of things that I would like to try to accomplish in the first 6 months. I welcome your comments and thoughts. - Rewrite of Rules of Procedure to make them understandable, complete and consistent (or at least as close as we can come to that). - Work with staff to make our various web sites reasonably complete and navigateable (so we and others can easily find things). - Work with staff to make any necessary changes to mailing lists and subscribers to further reduce duplication. - Work with staff on a first pass of ALS review to see to what extent they are complying with their basic requirements and to ensure we have up-to-date contact information, all in order to understand what next steps we must take. This will involve some work on the part of RALOs. My intent is that we all participate in these exercises, but that they not absorb a lot of committee time. Lastly, I would like to change the name of the position from Rapporteur to something that better resembles the job and is not confusing to others, who think that it is largely a reporting job. But I have not yet come up with a suitable name. Alan

2 1

FW: ALAC AC Statements to the Board in 2008
by Nick Ashton-Hart Nov. 20, 2008

Nov. 20, 2008

Dear Members: I believed that this has been forwarded to all of you, but upon looking for it I haven¹t been able to see it. As a result here it is (apologies in advance if this is a duplication). The below should be self-explanatory. ------ Forwarded Message > From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> > Reply-To: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:59:12 -0800 > To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> > Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey > <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, > "ALAC-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > ICANN Board of Directors <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart > <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: ALAC AC Statement to the Board on GNSO Stakeholder Group Openness > and Note to BOD regarding accountability and transparency > > Cheryl, > > Regarding your inquiry about At-Large Advisory Committee statements to the > Board this year, Staff has compiled the following summary of input and Board > action. Please let me know if Staff can be of any further assistance. > > Regards, > Denise > > ------- > Denise Michel > ICANN VP, Policy > denise.michel(a)icann.org > +1.408.429.3072 > > Summary of ALAC Submissions to ICANN Board in 2008 > > * 24 September 2008 - ALAC Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness > This statement was provided to the Board and noted by Staff in advance of the > Board's 1 October meeting at which the Board took action on GNSO Restructuring > issues. > > * 14 September 2008 - ALAC Provides Comments to the Consultation on the ALAC > Review Final Report > These comments were received and included in the summary/analysis of the > public comment forum, which is being considered by the Board Governance > Committee ALAC Review Working Group. The Board receives periodic updates on > the ALAC Review and follow-up activities. The summary/analysis will be posted > for public review when translated. > > * 14 September 2008 - ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on Amendments to > the Registrar Accreditation Agreement > The statement was incorporated in the summary/analysis of comments on this > proceeding and posted for public review on 20 October 2008. The Board > receives periodic updates on the RAA Amendments and related community > discussions. > > * 14 August 2008 - ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the Structure of > the GNSO Council > The original version of this statement was included in the Report of the > Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) and was shared with the > Board in advance of their August meeting at which GNSO Restructuring issues > were discussed. Staff brought the ALAC's revised statement to the Board's > attention when addressing community reactions to the WG-GCR work efforts and > it was discussed at subsequent Board meetings, particularly with respect to > the role of individual Internet users in the GNSO. > > * 27 June 2008 - ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the New GTLD Policy's > Objections Provisions > According to the ALAC correspondence web page, this statement was presented > directly to the ICANN Board during the Public Board Meeting on 26th June 2008 > as part of the Report of the ALAC to the Board. These comments were factored > into the Staff's implementation work, which is now the subject of community > discussion. > > * 5 April/5 May 2008 - At-Large Advisory Committee Statement To the ICANN > Board on Public Consultation Related to Development of a Travel Policy > The statement was reviewed and summarized by the COO as part of the travel > policy evaluation process, and was included in the summary/analysis published > 10 July 2008 and brought to the Board's attention. > > * 5 April/5 May 2008 - ALAC Statement on the Draft Operating Plan for FY > 2008-2009 > The ALAC statement was received and evaluated by Staff as part of the > operating plan development with the Board. > > * 5 April/5 May 2008 - ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements Revision > The public comment forum on GNSO Improvements was re-opened to accommodate > late-filed ALAC comments. A summary/analysis of comments received was > publicly posted. The ALAC position also was summarized and brought to the > Board's attention in advance of their 29 May Board meeting at which they > received an update on this issue. > > > ================================= > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> > wrote: >> Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply Peter, I would certainly value >> the opportunity to catch up with you in Cairo, and I can assure you and your >> Board, that the ALAC as well as the wider At-Large community, stand ready to >> assist and cooperate with, the proposed Board Committee on Public >> Participation you mentioned, in any way that it can, so that we get the >> various processes you outline to become a 'best practice model' for the grass >> roots participation in the multi-stakeholder model that is so necessary for >> ICANN, as it transitions to a post JPA environment. >> >> >> >> Cheryl >> >> >> >> From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org] >> Sent: Friday, 17 October 2008 8:25 AM >> To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au >> Cc: John Jeffrey; Denise Michel; Wendy Seltzer; >> ALAC-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN Board of Directors >> Subject: Re: ALAC AC Statement to the Board on GNSO Stakeholder Group >> Openness and Note to BOD regarding accountability and transparancy >> >> >> >> Cheryl, >> >> Thank you for the statement, and the reference to the the rules of procedure >> adopted by the ALAC. >> >> >> >> As to previous statements from ALAC, and their treatment by the board, I am >> going to leave that to the ALAC Liaison to the Board to reply. >> >> I regret that I simply don't have time to review the status of ALAC input to >> the board and provide you with a report. I am sure staff will also assist the >> Liaison if required. >> >> >> >> In relation to future statements, I shall ask staff to ensure that, >> routinely, acknowledgments of receipt of ALAC correspondence are sent in a >> timely fashion.I had assumed that to be the case. >> >> >> >> As to reporting outcomes, the board receives input on most matters from many >> sources which go into its deliberative mix. >> >> The current procedure for reporting to the community on those deliberations >> is via early notice of the date and agenda of each board meeting, the prompt >> publication of a very detailed report of each board meeting. The very detail >> of that report has been the subject of some comment by outside reviewers, but >> as one of the originators of that policy, I believe that the community has a >> right to see hows its input is treated by the board. To be fair, that policy >> is in part a response to the much more limited reporting policy of the past, >> and we may look at somewhat lessening the reporting burden on staff. >> >> >> >> It is not current practice to write, in addition, to all the contributors to >> the debate, giving them an individual report on matters of concern to them. >> >> I think that is an unwarranted burden, and the Meeting notes and Minutes are >> sufficient for those purposes. >> >> >> >> In the context of the wider issue of acknowledging and responding to input >> into policy debate, I have been discussing the matter with the CEO. The board >> has also agreed to form a Board Committee on Public Participation, about >> which some formal steps are expected at the Cairo meeting. I expect that >> Committee to address, as an early topic, the policy on acknowledging, >> processing and responding to public comment. Getting this right is, to me, >> the essence of being an industry led organization, using transparent, >> bottom-up processes. >> >> >> >> I look forward to catching up with you in person in Cairo soon. >> >> >> >> My regards >> >> >> >> Peter Dengate Thrush >> >> Chairman of the Board of Directors, >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> >> >> >> +64 4 4998959 (DDI) >> >> +64 21499888 (mobile) >> >> +64 4 4710672 (fax) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16/10/2008, at 9:33 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Dear Peter: >> >> On behalf of the ALAC I have the duty to provide you with the following >> Statement of the ALAC on GNSO Stakeholder Group Openness. >> >> We trust that the attached will inform the board's continuing discussions >> related to the restructuring of the GNSO. >> >> May I note that the Stakeholder Group Statement, is the latest in a >> considerable list of AC statements transmitted to the Board this year. We >> have yet to see any evidence that any of them has been distributed to the >> Board, let alone discussed. The ALAC has become increasingly concerned over >> this matter, and we will be raising at again in Cairo no doubt; but could >> you, as Chairman, please note we would like to know what the status of our >> previous statements is, if they have been distributed, and if not, why not. >> Further we would also like to have some response from the Board in relation >> to their contents as well as a straightforward confirmation that in future >> advice sent will be acknowledged, discussed, and the results of that >> discussion transmitted to us, we assume by some form of email correspondence >> with at least the ALAC ExCom and of course via our Liaison to the Board. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> >> Cheryl. >> >> <AL-ALAC-ST-0908-2 Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness - EN.pdf><16 10 >> 2008 note to BOD on Accountability.pdf> >> >> > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0