August 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Nominating Committee - African Region Candidatures
by At-Large Staff Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Dear Afralo members: As you will recall, on 19th August we sent a reminder to this list, noting that the 25th August 2008 was the deadline for the ALAC to receive a list of those from your Geographic Region who were to be forwarded to the ALAC to choose from amongst for appointment to the Nominating Committee. As the ALAC have not received any communication from the region, we are writing to advise you (and the ALAC by copy) that we are aware of two persons who have let the region know that they are willing to serve: 1. Khaled Koubaa the incumbent Nominating Commmittee member from Africa 2. Alan Levin, of ISOC South Africa, who is self-nominated with a second from McTim on the list We note that there has not been a recommendation from the regional Secretariat on behalf of the region. Mindful of the fact that the ALAC needs to proceed to selecting the list of Nominating Committee appointments for the coming year (which are actually due on 31 August), it will now be for the ALAC to decide to vote on the above-mentioned persons or to otherwise resolve upon a candidate from the African Geographic Region who shall be appointed to the NomCom for the upcoming year. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Sept. 2, 2008

Sept. 2, 2008

Thanks...we'll get to work with the stuff in the bottom half and get it to Tim Cole today. BB ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:44 PM To: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 1

Statement on proposed amendments to RAA, version II
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Here's the next version incorporating comments from Danny, Wendy and Carlton. I tried to recast the whole document and added introduction and conclusion, in which some of the more passionate reflections are made, though I modulated those a bit. I believe this needs to be to Tim Cole today. At this point I'm going to ask Nick, who's probably started his weekend by now, to give this a second read and then proceed with Spanish translation (and French if that's now possible). I will cc Tim so he has an idea of what's coming, but that he should be aware the final might not be completed until early next week. I'll be out Monday and with limited time online during the holiday weekend. Thanks for your contributions... Beau **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Thanks, Carlton, I will make sure those get into the next draft, which I'm working on now -- I erroneously responded to Wendy's last note as if she were responding to the fast flux document, however, it doesn't really change the content, just ignore the reference to Mike O'Connor. Apologies for confusion. BB -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Brendler, Beau; ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read LACRALO has not returned a consensus position that we can report but I would wish to associate and endorse the document prepared by Beau's team. We believe that any breach of a solemn agreement must identify those that are harmed,set it right and find ways to deter the aggressor. Markets generally recognize these tenets with punitive fines for the culprits and monetary compensation for those harmed. In this context, I fully endorse Wendy's additional comments, especially the call for beneficiary status for all users affected by registrar misbehaviour. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels UWI On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Thanks Beau, > A few points of question: > >> ICANN should require standardized Acceptable Use Policy in registration agreements to address criminal fraud, when this directly affects the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet. > > I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to address criminal > activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it. > >> Enforce and make public the results of dispute mechanisms in place that obligate registrars to facilitate enforcement of abusive registration policies, such as the UDRP. > > Without endorsing any of those dispute resolution policies, I think > transparency about their effects is useful. ICANN, rather than the > registrars, should be responsible for the enforcement and disclosure, > though. > > I would still prefer to see concrete information-forcing mechanisms, > e.g., requiring prominent notification of deviations from a standard > set of contract terms. Market competition only works when consumers > know they are making a choice and understand the terms of the choice. > > Finally, I'll repeat my call for third-party beneficiary status for > the affected public. > > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > > Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. >> >> As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. >> >> The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) >> Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. >> >> The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. >> >> If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. >> >> Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> SCANNED >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic >> ann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: >> http://st.icann.org/alac > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.914.374.0613 > Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica > nn.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 2

Fast Flux Scoping Poll
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Greetings. I have attached the spreadsheet containing my answers to this questionnaire to help determine how the fast flux working group should proceed. Once again, deadlines are tight, and I had hoped to get to this before today, but: If anyone has any comments or objections to the answers I have put into the spreadsheet, please let me know as soon as possible, since it represents an ALAC position on the matter (though is preliminary to moving forward with this issue; it's more a poll of the working group to figure out how, and even if, to move forward). I will send an accompanying note to Mike describing any differences. As you can see by the note below, he wants to review the results over the weekend this weekend. Personally, I believe the user community is concerned about fraud and abuse issues associated with fast flux, and I think we should encourage this working group to continue. Fast flux is used for criminal activity, so I tend to see this issue in perhaps a more binary fashion than others. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:39 AM To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] here's my little poll -- please try to get them back to me by end-of-day Friday hi all, i humbly submit my little questionnaire and hope that you'll take a moment to fill it out. i've added one question to let people express a view as to whether they would like to focus on Fast Flux, or broaden the scope to include "fraud and abuse". again, let's not belabor the words at this point -- it's just trying to get at a sense of scope. to avoid mailing-list clutter, why don't you send your response files to me directly -- i'll smash them into a single worksheet, do some analysis, and push the whole thing back to the list. i'll finish that over the weekend and put together 3-5 options based on whatever clumps i find in there (plus some Kentucky windage) and try to get those options out to you early next week so you will have some time to look them over before the call next Wednesday. thanks! m voice: 651-647-6109 fax: 866-280-2356 web: www.haven2.com *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

While there are certainly various reactions being contemplated in regards to the ICANN travel policy, this message is specifically intended to call attention to one interesting detail from Wednesday's teleconference on the issue. I refer to the summary minutes of the meeting: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_20_august_2008 and the 12th paragraph, which currently begins: > D Michel wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, she noted > that nothing will essentially change for At-Large until a year from now. This is very significant, if it is accurate, for it indicates a substantial change in policy from what we have been told to date. What I have been explicitly told by ICANN staff is that -- starting IMMEDIATELY with the Cairo meeting -- only the 15 ALAC members people would be funded. No liaisons, no RALO chairs or secretariats, and no regional ALS reps. I can understand the lack of regional rep funding for Cairo given that the Summit takes place the following meeting, and it is intended to welcome ALSs from everywhere. However, the cut off of Chair, Secretariat and Liaison funding is definitely not the "status quo" for At-Large. Denise's statement above, as reported in the summary minutes, appears to contradict the announcement of earlier cuts. However, I am informed that what she really meant to say (as was Doug in speaking of "maintaining the status quo") is that nothing will change **FOR ALAC ONLY**. An examination of the recording will confirm or deny what Denise was reported as saying, which means that either: - Indeed, nothing is changing for the next year, which means Liaison and RALO leadership funding for Cairo, Mexico City, and June 2009 in AsiaPac or - There is some doublespeak going on, which suggests that the status quo for At-Large is being maintained when it clearly is not. If even the ICANN staffer taking the summary minutes had not caught any intended nuance that distinguished between "ALAC" and "At-Large", why would we? As far as I know, ALAC and At-Large are not separated as budget categories. In any case, I look forward to the clarification of this matter. If, indeed, the At-Large status quo will not change this year, I applaud ICANN staff on this show of good faith, and look forward to its constructive engagement with At-Large on this and other issues. - Evan PS: I am very aware that Denise explicitly said that a few Summit organizers and two of the Liaisons would be funded to go to Cairo. But there is a difference between making some arbitrary exceptions to the cuts, and saying there is no change to what had been done before.

5 5

ICANN Board Meeting tomorrow
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

ICANN's board will meet tomorrow, with an agenda including substantial discussion of the GNSO Council Restructuring. If there are points to be added to that discussion, beyond those already raised regarding the importance of making room for Internet *users* on the Council (which I will re-emphasize), please let me know. Please also share any comments on other topics. I will bring the ALAC's concerns about the travel policy and support for RALO participants to the table, if that is desired. <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/> 28 August 2008 Special Board Meeting Agenda [Agenda set by Executive Committee on 21 August 2008] Review Minutes from 31 July / 1 August Special Board Meeting President’s Monthly Report GNSO Council Restructuring Nominating Committee’s Recommendation for ICANN Bylaws Change regarding Criteria for Board Member Selection Redelegation of the .MS (Montserrat) Domain Ombudsman Budget Independent Reviews Status Report Board Finance Committee Report Board Governance Committee Report Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation for selection of the next Nominating Committee Chair Board’s Compensation Committee Report President’s Strategy Committee Report Other Business Board Executive Session -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

9 12

Travel Support for NomCom Delegates at Cairo Meeting
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

It would seem that this was supposed to go to ALAC as well, but I have not seen it yet. The gist of it is that if you are a NomCom delegate on the upcoming 2009 NomCom, and not otherwise funded to attend ICANN, ICANN will pay for your airfare and room and food starting on Thursday night, but not for the bulk of the ICANN meeting itself. This is in line with the formal policy, but I believe not in line with recent practice (but not sure about last year). Anyone we are potentially naming as a delegate to the NomCom (vote to start today I believe) should really be notified about this and sign-off on it. Unless Nick has some private ALAC funding lined up to cover this. Alan >Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:45:10 -0700 >From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Travel Support for Cairo Meeting >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >At the request of Denise Michel I am sending this note to the >Council list. Advisory Committees, Constituencies and Supporting >Organizations are in the process of selecting their representatives >to the 2009 ICANN Nominating Committee. It is anticipated that the >2009 Nom Com will have a kickoff face-to-face meeting in Cairo >following the end of the ICANN meeting. Representatives to the Nom >Com will have their transportation reimbursed at economy class, >along with hotel costs covered for the Nom Com portion of the >meeting (ICANN would cover Thurs 6 Nov through Sat or Sun 8 or 9 Nov >depending when the rep departs Cairo). Hotel costs for the other >days of the ICANN meeting will have to be covered by the >representative or their sending organization. > ><GNSO-specific details omitted.> > >Patrick > >-- >Patrick L. Jones >Registry Liaison Manager & >Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >Fax: +1 310 823 8649 ><patrick.jones(a)icann.htm>patrick.jones(a)icann.org

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Since I was a part of this group (contributing to its earlier incarnation, but not to the "hypotheses" phase that began June 25 or so), I'd like to volunteer to help facilitate discussion and comment within ALAC. Some of the GAC hypotheses mirror what I believe are user community concerns/perceptions of WHOIS. I think the ALAC should review the whole document, but at minimum focus on what the GAC has put forward. Even if the ALAC can't agree, the user community's voice needs to be heard on this issue. For additional perspective I have attached the final version (in its entirety, no longer preliminary) of the New York state study we conducted that I presented to the ALAC in Paris, including the questions on WHOIS and other ICANN issues (grouped towards the end). The study is statistically significant for New York state only, but I believe the results should encourage us to look beyond the traditional "privacy vs. law enforcement" deadlock. Please do not distribute any of this data outside these groups, as we are planning to release it to the press as part of an anti-fraud campaign in Sept., Oct. and November. BB -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:02 AM To: whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] FW: Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached Dear Working Group Members and At-Large Community Members: Attached please find the report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group to the GNSO Council as requested by the Council in its resolution of 26 June 2008. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Deadline: RALO proposals for Nominating Committee Appointments
by Nick Ashton-Hart Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Dear RALO Leaders: Please be reminded that today is the deadline for making known to ALAC your RALOs selections to the ALAC for the committee to be able to select the five ALAC appointees to the Nominating Committee. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 4

Nominating Committee delegate for North America
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2008

Aug. 25, 2008

A public solicitation to the NA-Discuss list was made asking for nominations for the person to be the NA delegate to the Nominating Committee (which will chose next year's appointees to the Board, GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC). Currently, the NA delegate is Ross Rader, who is eligible to serve one more term. Only one public nomination was received, and that was to reappoint Ross. In parallel with the solicitation, discussions among the NA members of ALAC, and NARALO Chair and Secretariat, resulted in two nominations, specifically Ross and Dharma Dailey. Neither the ALAC members nor RALO representatives could come to consensus, and so both names are being submitted to the ALAC for their vote. Alan Greenberg, on behalf of Beau Brendler and Robert Guerra

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

I was unfortunately not on the call, so my jumping in here may be innapropriate. But to clarify my understanding... If by "this [..] policy in your second sentence, you mean the "Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09" posted on 13Aug08, it is currently in effect immediately and applies to Cairo (for those not familiar with the notation, FY2009 is the fiscal year ENDING in 2009 and starting July 1, 2008. If the expression is referring to cutting ALAC funds to be in line with the Supporting Organizations (essentially to 50% excluding NomCom appointees), then that is the result of an approved Board motion in Paris and is effective for FY2010 (starting July 2009). The Board could certainly change their mind and rescind the change, or alter it in any way, but that does not change the fact that it was adopted by the Board without any level of consultation. Alan At 22/08/2008 02:37 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Evan: >There was no such qualification! What was said is that this was a policy >*proposal* and is being handled in the way proposals are supposed to be - >discussed and a consensus position adopted. Whatever form was adopted would >not come into effect until the new fiscal year, which begins in June 2009. > >In fact, from my perspective, both Denise & Brent were at pains to ensure >these essential factors were understood! > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:04 PM >To: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC] Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy > > >While there are certainly various reactions being contemplated in >regards to the ICANN travel policy, this message is specifically >intended to call attention to one interesting detail from Wednesday's >teleconference on the issue. > >I refer to the summary minutes of the meeting: >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_20_august_2008 >and the 12th paragraph, which currently begins: > > > D Michel wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, she noted > > that nothing will essentially change for At-Large until a year from now. > >This is very significant, if it is accurate, for it indicates a >substantial change in policy from what we have been told to date. What I >have been explicitly told by ICANN staff is that -- starting IMMEDIATELY >with the Cairo meeting -- only the 15 ALAC members people would be >funded. No liaisons, no RALO chairs or secretariats, and no regional ALS >reps. > >I can understand the lack of regional rep funding for Cairo given that >the Summit takes place the following meeting, and it is intended to >welcome ALSs from everywhere. However, the cut off of Chair, Secretariat >and Liaison funding is definitely not the "status quo" for At-Large. > >Denise's statement above, as reported in the summary minutes, appears to >contradict the announcement of earlier cuts. However, I am informed that >what she really meant to say (as was Doug in speaking of "maintaining >the status quo") is that nothing will change **FOR ALAC ONLY**. > >An examination of the recording will confirm or deny what Denise was >reported as saying, which means that either: > >- Indeed, nothing is changing for the next year, which means Liaison and >RALO leadership funding for Cairo, Mexico City, and June 2009 in AsiaPac > >or > >- There is some doublespeak going on, which suggests that the status quo >for At-Large is being maintained when it clearly is not. If even the >ICANN staffer taking the summary minutes had not caught any intended >nuance that distinguished between "ALAC" and "At-Large", why would we? >As far as I know, ALAC and At-Large are not separated as budget categories. > >In any case, I look forward to the clarification of this matter. If, >indeed, the At-Large status quo will not change this year, I applaud >ICANN staff on this show of good faith, and look forward to its >constructive engagement with At-Large on this and other issues. > > >- Evan > >PS: I am very aware that Denise explicitly said that a few Summit >organizers and two of the Liaisons would be funded to go to Cairo. But >there is a difference between making some arbitrary exceptions to the >cuts, and saying there is no change to what had been done before. > > >_______________________________________________ >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

RES: Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy
by Vanda Scartezini UOL Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

HI EVAN, Carlton Exactly the point raised by Denise which shall be questioned. In my understanding what she said as "essentially" not change doesn't mean "nothing"will change right now. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda(a)uol.com.br  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." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Carlton Samuels Enviada em: sexta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2008 15:38 Para: 'Evan Leibovitch' Cc: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Assunto: Re: [ALAC] Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy Evan: There was no such qualification! What was said is that this was a policy *proposal* and is being handled in the way proposals are supposed to be - discussed and a consensus position adopted. Whatever form was adopted would not come into effect until the new fiscal year, which begins in June 2009. In fact, from my perspective, both Denise & Brent were at pains to ensure these essential factors were understood! Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:04 PM To: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC] Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy While there are certainly various reactions being contemplated in regards to the ICANN travel policy, this message is specifically intended to call attention to one interesting detail from Wednesday's teleconference on the issue. I refer to the summary minutes of the meeting: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_20_august_2008 and the 12th paragraph, which currently begins: > D Michel wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, she noted > that nothing will essentially change for At-Large until a year from now. This is very significant, if it is accurate, for it indicates a substantial change in policy from what we have been told to date. What I have been explicitly told by ICANN staff is that -- starting IMMEDIATELY with the Cairo meeting -- only the 15 ALAC members people would be funded. No liaisons, no RALO chairs or secretariats, and no regional ALS reps. I can understand the lack of regional rep funding for Cairo given that the Summit takes place the following meeting, and it is intended to welcome ALSs from everywhere. However, the cut off of Chair, Secretariat and Liaison funding is definitely not the "status quo" for At-Large. Denise's statement above, as reported in the summary minutes, appears to contradict the announcement of earlier cuts. However, I am informed that what she really meant to say (as was Doug in speaking of "maintaining the status quo") is that nothing will change **FOR ALAC ONLY**. An examination of the recording will confirm or deny what Denise was reported as saying, which means that either: - Indeed, nothing is changing for the next year, which means Liaison and RALO leadership funding for Cairo, Mexico City, and June 2009 in AsiaPac or - There is some doublespeak going on, which suggests that the status quo for At-Large is being maintained when it clearly is not. If even the ICANN staffer taking the summary minutes had not caught any intended nuance that distinguished between "ALAC" and "At-Large", why would we? As far as I know, ALAC and At-Large are not separated as budget categories. In any case, I look forward to the clarification of this matter. If, indeed, the At-Large status quo will not change this year, I applaud ICANN staff on this show of good faith, and look forward to its constructive engagement with At-Large on this and other issues. - Evan PS: I am very aware that Denise explicitly said that a few Summit organizers and two of the Liaisons would be funded to go to Cairo. But there is a difference between making some arbitrary exceptions to the cuts, and saying there is no change to what had been done before. _______________________________________________ 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

2 1

ALAC teleconference of 22 July 2008
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 21, 2008

Aug. 21, 2008

During the July 22 teleconference, the ALAC passed a motion in principle which needed some final word-smithing, and I was assigned the task. The place-holder motion was: "ALAC shall formally dissent from the result of the working group on GNSO Improvements if the word 'registrant' is not replaced with the word 'user' as regards representation in the GNSO." The formal wording should be adjusted to read: "If the report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring is issued without endorsing the the user of the term "user" instead of "registrant" for the non-contracted commercial and non-commercial stakeholders groups, the ALAC shall formally advise the Board to do so." Since the Working Group did ultimately endorse the use of the term "user" instead of "registrant", no further action is required at this time, but I request that the minutes be suitably adjusted. Alan

1 0

Fast flux update, part 1
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 15, 2008

Aug. 15, 2008

Colleagues: The Fast Flux working group is calling for constituency statements. The bad news is, they are in fact due now, though I would guess that delivering one by the middle of next week would not be problematic. The good news, if you can call it that, is that only two other constituencies have made statements -- the registries and intellectual property. The IP statement is brief and is pasted directly below. "The IPC appreciates very much the activity of the Fast Flux WG. We recognize that Fast Flux is a serious topic which so far has not been widely discussed and analysed. The work of the Fast Flux WG enables members of the IPC to learn more about the issues involved. At the moment IPC does not have any specific comments or recommendations regarding Fast Flux and the most appropriate resolution of negative impacts connected with Fast Flux, nevertheless we hope to be able to comment in detail at a later stage of the work of the WG." The registry statement is longer, and I have attached the PDF. In part 2 of this message, which I will send later this afternoon, I will suggest what ALAC's statement should be. I do not believe it has to be as long as the registry constituency's statement, but should make the point that fast flux is used by criminals to do bad things that make the Internet an unpleasant experience for users. Probably there will be a critical points of disagreement: Those who argue for ICANN to have a limited scope will say that enforcement activities are outside ICANN's scope (you can see this to some degree in the registry statement, though they also acknowledge that fast flux's only real purpose is criminal activity). Part 2 will come later this afternoon. Beau Brendler **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Further Information about At-Large Travel
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Both Evan and Dharma's comments are right on the money, as far as I'm concerned. D ________________________________ From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Carlton Samuels Sent: Thu 8/14/2008 12:03 PM To: 'Evan Leibovitch'; 'Nick Ashton-Hart' Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: Re: [ALAC] Further Information about At-Large Travel For the record and speaking only for myself, Evan is pithily correct in his assessment. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 03:24 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Further Information about At-Large Travel Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > For At-Large travel in FY 2009, in addition to funding the At-Large Summit, ICANN will be funding the 15 members of the ALAC to attend the Cairo meeting and the meeting being held in the Asia-Pacific region (location TBA) in June 2009. > Will the RALO secretariats, chairs and ALAC liaisons also be attending? > The funding for the 15 members will be on the same basis as has been the case for recent At-Large travel to ICANN meetings: > > * Hotel > * Per-Diem > * Airfare > > Of course, all the RALOs will be meeting during this fiscal year as a part of the Summit, and of course ALAC members will attend the Summit as well. > This is all stating the obvious. It also conveniently ignores that fact that in calendar 2009 there will be no F2F meeting for either NARALO or LACRALO since there is no ICANN meeting held in the Americas this year. The possibility of having regional meetings was put on hold because of the possibility that the Summit would happen this year. > The result is that overall, At-Large travel is considerably increased for this FY over that provided for previous years. "Considerably"? By your own estimate, the increase would be a MAXIMUM of 28% over the previous year. And then the FY2010 amount would be far, far lower ... dramatically lower than the FY2008 amount. So there would be a short term spike followed by a long-term reduction. Future years will be funded far less than present and previous ones. Repeating the obvious point (that the Summit creates a one-time surge in travel cost) cannot obfuscate the fact that the new travel policy is designed to outlast the Summit and is a long-term cutback. The presence of a Summit does not magically diminish the value and importance of having Chairs, Secretariats and Liaisons funded for regular meetings, nor does it justify halving the funding of elected ALAC member attendance. And at a time when RALO outreach is desperately needed (how many ALSs have joined in the past year?), that resource (ie, regional F2F meetings) is being cut too. > To compare it in terms of the number of attendees, see below: > > FY 2008: 35 At-Large attendees funded per ICANN meeting = 105 persons total > FY 2009: 15 At-Large attendees at 2 meetings plus up to approximately 105 attendees at one meeting = up to 135 attendees > Since you insist on belabouring this point, why stop at 2009? Let's examine at what the policy will do the following year (and every year subsequent): FY 2010: 10 At-Large attendees (5 NomComms + 50% of the rest of ALAC) funded per meeting = 30 persons total FY 2011: 10 At-Large attendees (5 NomComms + 50% of the rest of ALAC) funded per meeting = 30 persons total ... and so on... So... we go from 105, to 135, to 30, and set to remain at 30 for subsequent years. That means that after a one-year spike, At-Large suffers a long-term reduction of travel funding of 72%. The "horror excesses" of the Summit are more than recouped the very next year thanks to these cuts. > Please let me know if you have questions. > - How can anyone supposedly supporting the activities of At-Large defend a 72% resource reduction at this crucial stage in its evolution? - Why is the one-time Summit (some spike -- a _maximum_ 28% over 2008) brought up as justification for such long-term resource slashing? - Can we keep the status quo if we cancel the Summit? (If that is the main reason for the long term cut then perhaps we should reconsider the penalty that the Summit would exact on At-Large's long-term effectiveness.) (And if the answer to the above is "no", then for heaven's sake stop linking the Summit to the long-term cutback.) - Evan _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Further Information about At-Large Travel
by Nick Ashton-Hart Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Dear At-Large community members: The travel procedure for FY 2009 has been published - available at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm. Additional information on how this affects At-Large travel in the current FY is included below. For At-Large travel in FY 2009, in addition to funding the At-Large Summit, ICANN will be funding the 15 members of the ALAC to attend the Cairo meeting and the meeting being held in the Asia-Pacific region (location TBA) in June 2009. The funding for the 15 members will be on the same basis as has been the case for recent At-Large travel to ICANN meetings: * Hotel * Per-Diem * Airfare Of course, all the RALOs will be meeting during this fiscal year as a part of the Summit, and of course ALAC members will attend the Summit as well. The result is that overall, At-Large travel is considerably increased for this FY over that provided for previous years. To compare it in terms of the number of attendees, see below: FY 2008: 35 At-Large attendees funded per ICANN meeting = 105 persons total FY 2009: 15 At-Large attendees at 2 meetings plus up to approximately 105 attendees at one meeting = up to 135 attendees Please let me know if you have questions. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

3 5

FW: [ALAC-Announce] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 Posted
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

For full disclosure. CAS -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:03 AM To: LAC Discuss Subject: FW: [ALAC-Announce] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 Posted Dear Colleagues: See the new and long awaited travel support policy. Quite frankly, this is not the easiest documentation to get thru or understand. And unfortunately, it is not yet available in Spanish. At any rate, the AT-Large staff will be answering questions as best as they can. >From my reading, broad ALS/RALO travel support for attending ICANN meetings seems, by and large, to be relegated to fellowship assistance. From a strategic perspective, this travel policy is merely the thin edge of a sure wedge. Because the declaration that the ALAC is "mature" after the ALS Summit surely means that ICANN would have signalled less interest in the whole ALS/RALO enterprise input to policy; think of yourselves as unloved cousins visiting past your exit date. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:46 PM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 Posted ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 http://www.icann.org./en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm 13 August 2008 The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 ( http://www.icann.org./en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08.htm ) strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. However, there is strong agreement within the community that a procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy. Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, some key changes include: * Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors * Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting * Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a SO without overburdening the Chair The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to travel-support(a)icann.org . Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional input if desired. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists. icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

travel policy
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Colleagues... I have some questions on this -- apologies I have not kept on top of it, due to recent personal circumstances. This document seems vague about the at-large travel budget itself. Here's what I get from these documents referenced in the below news alert: 1. The supporting organizations want and are going to get some additional ICANN funds for travel. So are nomcom appointed people. 2. Chairs and such get some more flexibility and discretion with how travel funding is spent. 3. Because of the expense of the forthcoming at-large summit, the at-large will be considered after the summit to be "matured," and this means: -- limited to no travel funds for those outside the ALAC, i.e., people in ALSs, RALOs, etc. (?) -- limited to no travel funds for the 18-odd people on the ALAC itself (?) Is this correct? -----Original Message----- From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Wed 8/13/2008 2:35 PM To: Brendler, Beau Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm ________________________________ ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 13 August 2008 The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08.htm document strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. However, there is strong agreement within the community that a procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy. Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, some key changes include: * Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors * Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting * Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a SO without overburdening the Chair The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to travel-support(a)icann.org. Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional input if desired. ________________________________ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine http://www.icann.org/magazine/ This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Powered by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com Manage your subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=10248929&l=6333&s=96FD&m=16… *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

5 6

August 08 ICANN Policy Update now online
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

As not everyone on this list may be currently subscribed to the monthly ICANN Policy Update Newsletter, please note the August update is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm CLO

2 1

ALAC-Stmt-on-GNSO-Final.pdf
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Jeffrey, Please find attached the recently endorsed (12/08/08) ALAC Statement regarding the outcomes of the recent GNSO Improvements, Council Restructuring Working Group report provided by that committee at the end of July and considered by the Board at its last meeting. This document embodies the ALAC representative and Sub-Committee Report that was appended to that working groups report and includes new sections which outline several additional key points, opinion and issues that the ALAC wishes to be considered by the Board at their August meeting. Yours sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2008-09

1 0

Re: [ALAC] travel policy
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Hong, I'm sorry if my mentioning you by name was taken in any way to reflect negatively on you. And it certainly is not a reflection on your excellent work on IDNs. Unfortunately, you are the only regular Liaison that we have to a potentially unfunded group who is not already funded (this year anyway) by ICANN. Robert and Carlos would probably not get funding as their Liaison positions to the SSAC and NCUC are not mandated by the By-Laws. But they are already ALAC members. Liaisons to GNSO and ccNSO are By-Law mandates, and if not held by ALAC members, are funded under the new rules (perhaps not 100% of course). So it was the only way I could think of to illustrate the case. In prior years, ICANN has funded travel for positions such as yours, but the new proposal does not seem to. Again, sorry if it was not clear what I was trying to say. Alan At 13/08/2008 08:44 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >With respect to this newly released document, I don't understand why >I'm singled out for this policy analysis. Is it a negative comment on >my work or for any other reasonable?

1 0

Re: [ALAC] travel policy
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2008

Aug. 13, 2008

As I read it, partially correct. See comments below. At 13/08/2008 03:06 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >Colleagues... > >I have some questions on this -- apologies I have not kept on top of >it, due to recent personal circumstances. This document seems vague >about the at-large travel budget itself. Here's what I get from >these documents referenced in the below news alert: > >1. The supporting organizations want and are going to get some >additional ICANN funds for travel. So are nomcom appointed people. Correct. In fact, even the ASO which according to the document does not WANT any will get it . Presumably, if they decline, the rest of us cannot spent their money. >2. Chairs and such get some more flexibility and discretion with how >travel funding is spent. I think the chair discretion disappeared from the current version, replaced by each group having to decide on what rules/procedures will be applied to them. Chairs are allowed to travel business class (presumably only if flight is over 5 hours), but the rules adopted by the organization may or may not fund the chair (for air and or per diem). >3. Because of the expense of the forthcoming at-large summit, the >at-large will be considered after the summit to be "matured," and this means: >-- limited to no travel funds for those outside the ALAC, i.e., >people in ALSs, RALOs, etc. (?) >-- limited to no travel funds for the 18-odd people on the ALAC itself (?) As I read it, for the coming year, ALAC is fully funded (to the extent that we are now. There is no mention of any funding for RALO/ALS people (also no mention in summarizing the current state, so it will not be perceived as a cut by others). I presume we could voluntarily take less funding for the committee and spread it around to others. Post July 2009, if the same rules apply as for other orgs (as implied, although this document is less specific on the time-frame), we would get 50% of the needed money for the 10 RALO-selected Committee members. Just as the GNSO could use money for non-Councillors (ie working group members), we could do the same for RALO/ALS people. The status of Liaison to other groups is unclear. If they are a full-fledged ALAC member, they will be subject to the ALAC rules. If not, they *may* be eligible to funding based on the rules of the organization they are liaising to. Liaison to unfunded organizations (such as Hong for ID issues) are presumably not funded unless we take some of our money to support her. Ditto for liaison TO our committee. Or at least, that is how I read the document just distributed. If staff have a different interpretation, It would be nice to hear. It would specifically be nice to know very soon who is being funded for Cairo. Alan >Is this correct? > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] >Sent: Wed 8/13/2008 2:35 PM >To: Brendler, Beau >Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel >Support Procedure for FY09 > >ICANN News Alert >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm >________________________________ > >ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 >13 August 2008 > >The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a >specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the >community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). >There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. >It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an >analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in >budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in >person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments >were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at: > >http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html > >The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08.htm >document strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, >this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. >However, there is strong agreement within the community that a >procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, >adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy. > >Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, >some key changes include: > >* Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors >* Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting >* Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a >SO without overburdening the Chair > >The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. >This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will >develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to >capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire >community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN >staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to >travel-support(a)icann.org. > >Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first >implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and >Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will >conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure >at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, >and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional >input if desired. >________________________________ > >Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine http://www.icann.org/magazine/ > > >This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > >Powered by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com > >Manage your subscription: >http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=10248929&l=6333&s=96FD&m=16… > > > > >*** >Scanned > > >**************************************************************************** >******** >SCANNED > >**************************************************************************** >******** >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2008

Aug. 13, 2008

You may well be right regarding Internet policy issues in general. But there will certainly be internal communications for administrative issues, or ongoing work on a statement being formulated or discussed that is targeted to a specific RALO). And we need to remember that if a subscriber is flooded with mail that has no direct relevance to them, they may well just get off the list. So targeting is important. Alan At 07/08/2008 03:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Based on our mandate, I cannot think of any issue important to ALAC that >would have a specificity of interest to just one RALO. > >This is not to say that every issue will resonate the same for every >ALS.......or even RALO! > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 PM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication > >The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >RALO management and ICANN staff. > >The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO people. > >The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. > >Somehow we need to rationalize this. > >Some questions that come to mind are: >- Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >- Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >comment when appropriate. >- Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >that are relevant to that RALO only? > >Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? > >Alan > >PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >without cross-posting. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

4 4