December 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery presentation posted
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Following are pointers to a presentation to be given at this coming Thursday's GNSO meeting, the GNSO Agenda where it will be discussed, and the Issue report requested by the ALAC. Alan >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:59:58 -0800 >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery > presentation posted >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >Dear Alan, > >Could you please distribute this on the ALAC lists for information. > >Thanks so much. >Glen > >Please find a power point presentation of the > >GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/post-expiration-domain-name-recovery-i… > >Marika Konings will give a presentation to the >Council on Thursday at the meeting under > >Item 6. Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (20 mins) >http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-18dec08.shtml > >GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf > >- Overview >Discussion and decision on next steps: > >Motion to consider PDP at next meeting. > >The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues >Report power point presentation is posted on page: >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] CORRECTION: ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

URLs for attachments change. I have learned my lesson and will not do that again. The URL at end of my last message works - <http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. Once you get there, click on the attachment. Alan At 15/12/2008 02:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >URL is bad! >CAS > >On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal >comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. > >Alan > > >Thanks to Dharma Dailey who pointed out that the attachment has moved. > >That *was* where it lived when I posted the message. But I have seen >attachments on ICANN mail logs move before, so I should have known better. > >It is now at ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf >(tested seconds ago), but in case it moves again, the message >pointing to it (which I don't think moves) is ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. > >Alan > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision. We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines. If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized. Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants. If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard. The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core. It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review. - Evan

5 5

CORRECTION: ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

>For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal >comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at >http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. > >Alan Thanks to Dharma Dailey who pointed out that the attachment has moved. That *was* where it lived when I posted the message. But I have seen attachments on ICANN mail logs move before, so I should have known better. It is now at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf (tested seconds ago), but in case it moves again, the message pointing to it (which I don't think moves) is http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. Alan

2 1

Fwd: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

As noted on page 8, there have been two additional amendments over and above the set previously discussed. These require that Registrars make their contact information public, and that if a domain name is licensed, the licensee's contact information be made available, or the original registrant accepts liability for harm. ALan >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:00:55 -0800 >From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments >Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >All, > >Attached please find an updated report from Services on the pending >amendments to the RAA. This report updates and expands on the paper >sent on 29 October 2008. > >Thanks, Liz

1 0

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. Alan

1 0

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - ALAC comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Following the open consultation period, and factoring in the comments received, the ALAC has submitted its comments on the mid-point consultation report of BGC WG on the ALAC review. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00008.html and also on our wiki documents page https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_read_only_document_store. An ALAC vote to ratify this submission will begin shortly. Alan (on behalf of Cheryl)

1 0

Comments on the ALAC response to the mid-term consultation report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

Admittedly at the last moment, I have a few comments on the draft document (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_response_to_the_mid_point_co…) Regarding the ICANN planning process and ALAC (Item 5), it is clear that ALAC should be a part of the process, but at least a part (perhaps a large part) of ALAC activities will continue to be demand driven, either involvement with ongoing issues (see item 8) or activities driven by issues that rise to the top of user priorities (such as Domain tasting or the post-expiry redemption issue). Regarding involvement with the GNSO policy development process. I agree that the ALAC must be invited to participate. It should not be REQUIRED to, as there will always be numerous consultations that we decide our not sufficiently important to our community to warrant the effort. This is identical to the way Constituencies are treated within the GNSO. Alan

2 1

ALAC vote on RAA now open
by At-Large Staff Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Dear all, At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options: 1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context 2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues 3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it 4) Abstain ******************** Background information: ICANN 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. You can find details under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?raa_the_way_forward Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

ALAC comments with respect to users and the GNSO - minor revision
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

(Revised to correct typo.) Wendy, I don't know what time the Board meeting is, but hope that this reaches you before... The ALAC has already made a number of statements on the role of users on the GNSO, and none of them (in our minds) conflict or even greatly overlap with the roles of the ALAC. These statements stand. In essence, the differentiator between someone (or group) that is at home in At-Large vs one who should live in the GNSO is not based on the description of the user (or user group), but rather on their specific interests. Participation in the GNSO implies a specific interest in gTLD policy issues, and implies a willingness to put significant energy and time into the creation of gTLD policies and related issues. At-Large, has a wider scope and by definition has a more diffuse focus. We will never cover ALL ICANN issues, but attempt to address the ones that we believe have a higher impact on users. There may well be organizations that fit both descriptions (although I don't think there will be many). There are certainly people participating in these organizations who may wear both hats at times. We would not like to see rules preventing these contributors from working in both domains. Particularly in the developing world, there are far too few skilled people with the interest and energy to address issues in ICANN's domain, and we do not want to see people locked out for arbitrary reasons. Although the fear of capture is real, this is not likely the venue where it is problematic. To the extent that "individuals" as opposed to organizations should participate in the GNSO, we have tended to prefer a definition of constituency close to the current model. That is, like-minded people form a constituency to put forward their viewpoint. Two other issues were raised at the ALAC meeting which are not directly related to the user issue, but may be applicable to other Board discussions. 1. The concept of a "individual registrant" constituency is something that would be of value. However, it is not clear where this fits if the constituency does (and perhaps should) include both commercial and non-commercial members - it is easy to imagine that their views on many things will be similar, and it is not at all clear that dividing them over two SG serves any purpose. 2. The current description of the proposed Business Constituency seems to focus on the concept of a member having to be incorporated, which seem to exclude many of the small entrepreneurs who comprise the new model of Internet-based businesses (perhaps embodied by the example of a typical e-Bay seller). Alan

1 0