September 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fast flux update
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Brief update: It appears this WG has stalled for the foreseeable future. The chairman, Mike O'Connor, has resigned. Avri Doria sent a message this morning telling the participants to await next steps, but the WG had pretty much stalled in process already. Bureaucratic processes are not my strong suit, but should the ALAC create a short statement of advisory that we believe this is an important issue, provide some framework and definition, and encourage the GNSO to re-constitute the group? Beau ** 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.

6 5

ALAC Voting Results - Vote on ALAC Overview Report
by At-Large Staff Sept. 28, 2008

Sept. 28, 2008

Dear Members: Please be advised that the vote recently closed on the question: Do you believe that the Overview Report on the ALAC Review accurately reflects the various opinions held within At-Large on the ALAC Review Final Report? Has resulted in a non-quorate result - a vote of 7-0 in favour. At least 8 votes must be cast for a vote to produce a result. The results may be independently verified at: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=kbVvjKr9pu6kX6I5WHe4. The overview report itself may be viewed electronically at https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac-docs/attachments/alac_read_only_do cument_store:20080916064015-0-10475/files/AL-ALAC-OVR-0908-1%20ALAC%20Overvi ew%20Report%20on%20ALAC%20Review%20-%20EN.pdf. The Chair will announce in due course the next steps with respect to voting on this document. When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC members did not participate in the balloting: 1 Izumi Aizu 2 Annette Muehlberg 3 Carlos Aguirre 4 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro 5 Hawa Diakite 6 Thu Hue Nguyen 7 Vanda Scartezini 8 Fatimata Seye Sylla -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org .

3 2

Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Language Issues
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 27, 2008

Sept. 27, 2008

For those who are on the At-Large list and read it, forgive my cross-posting this. But last time I checked, some people on the ALAC list were not on the global list. I am posting this here because I would like to serve notice that I think we need to have a face-to-face discussion about what the performance rules and processes SHOULD be. I will volunteer (if people choose) to try to write them up for incorporation into our rules after that. But I think we need to talk about it first. Alan >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Language Issues > >At 27/09/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >>re: "we introduced rules that allow the ALAC to get rid of people >>who cannot participate; there is really no excuse for not applying them." >> >>Vittorio, >> >>The Chair is aware of the rules but has decided not to apply the >>rules. That's why we are in this mess. > >We did put in place some formal rules for assessing performance. In >my opinion, the rules were ill-advised in that they set very >specific quantitative levels of performance - some of which were >reasonable, and some were not. They have the merit of being >completely objective and not at all subjective. In my mind, that was >a mistake. > >Attendance IS important, but saying that a person attended all >meetings, and even submitted formal reports in all possible cases, >says NOTHING about how that person is contributing or passing >information in both directions. Someone who attends but does not >participate, and who files reports that have little content, is not >really a person who we want to cherish. > >We do need to be able to take action in cases of non-performance, >but those processes need to be far more subjective, and the actions >need to have levels of action between "You are meeting all >requirements" and "We are removing you". Removing someone, or even >counselling them that there performance is below par, is a serios >thing, and if the ALAC is going to do it, they need to duly consider >such action and not have it triggered purely by a spreadsheet. > >I will be so bold as to use myself as an example. My attendance at >meetings has been pretty good. If I had missed one ALS vote I would >have been substandard (there were only 2 and our "required standard" >is 75%). I have done an enormous amount of work on behalf of the >ALAC and in my capacity as GNSO Liaison, and I have pretty >diligently presented ALAC positions (where there were any) to the >GNSO, and presented topical GNSO issues to ALAC and At-Large. But I >have been less than diligent in filing formal reports for ALAC >teleconferences. Should I improves that? Certainly, and in fact I >changed how I was presenting info last month. Others can judge >whether my case needs attention or not, but I use it as an example >(without pointing fingers at anyone else) that we need to judge >performance on a more global sense than red-shaded cells in an Excel file. > >Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [council] Re: Input Requested on Council Restructuring
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 27, 2008

Sept. 27, 2008

Denise, please find attached the ALAC comments. As usual, due to the tight time-frame, these have been sent to ALAC and RALO folks, with some comments received (now incorporated) and no negative comments, but has not been subject to a formal vote. Alan At 19/09/2008 03:37 AM, you wrote: >Dear Community Members, > >As previously noted, discussions continue on >outstanding issues related to GNSO Council >restructuring. I wanted to keep you apprised of >issues and ideas under consideration that I am >aware of, and give you (individually or as >constituencies/advisory committees if time >permits) an opportunity to provide input. Thank >you to those who responded to my previous email >(included below). Additional input received >before 26 September on the issues noted below >will be summarized for the Board prior to their >30 September meeting at which these issues will be discussed. > >1) Registrants and/or Individual User >Participation -- If the Non-commercial >Stakeholder Group includes individual Internet >user groups, should any distinctions be made >with the membership of the ALAC and supporting >At-Large structures (which represents individual >Internet users' viewpoint across all of ICANN's >structures and activities)? The GNSO Working >Group (WG-GCR) recommended the inclusion of "all >interested parties that use or provide services >for the Internet..." in the non-contracted party >house and stated that it "should not be >restricted to domain registrants." The BGC GNSO >Improvements Report adopted by the Board in June >stated that a new Non-commercial Stakeholders >Group "must go far beyond the membership of the >current NCUC" (which is chartered to represent >non-commercial entities). "We must consider >educational, research, and philanthropic >organizations, foundations, think tanks, members >of academia, individual registrant groups and >other noncommercial organizations, as well as >individual registrants, as part of a >non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." > >2) Voting Thresholds for New Working Group Model >-- An additional issue raised is whether voting >thresholds were needed for electing the chair of >a PDP WG and approving the charter for a PDP >WG. If so, what should the thresholds be? (see >previous email below for other thresholds recommended by the WG-GCR). > >3) Electing Council Leadership -- There seems to >be agreement with the WG-GCR proposal to elect >the chair by 60% vote of both houses, and the >discussion is focused on whether a back-up >provision is needed. If you have not provided >comments, input would be appreciated on whether >an alternate provision is needed in case no >candidate achieves such supermajority and, if >so, what that provision should be. Ideas >discussed include: the full Council voting with >a simple majority with weighted voting in the >contracted party house to make the total house >votes equal, and the NCAs would each have a >single vote; and elect a chair by more than 50% of the vote of both houses. > >4) Implementation Plan -- The Board has directed >that an implementation plan be submitted for >Board approval that creates a transition to the >new Council structure. Further input would be >appreciated on this point, including on >transition timing and whether additional >guidance or requirements are needed on the >implementation plan. Also, views would be >appreciated on what provision should be made to >fill seats on the new Council if a Stakeholder >Plan is not approved by the Board. > >Thank you for your continued involvement and input. > >Regards, >Denise > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org > > > > >On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Denise Michel ><<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: >Dear GNSO Community Leaders: > >As I reported during yesterday's GNSO Council >teleconference meeting and previously via email, >the ICANN Board made significant progress >discussing various aspects of the GNSO Council >restructuring at its 28 August meeting. During >the meeting, Board members discussed a number of >consensus recommendations developed by the >special working group on GNSO Council >Restructuring (WG-GCR). The Board endorsed the >direction of the WG-GCR Report and approved a >bicameral voting structure that includes >contracted and non-contracted party houses each >composed of voting stakeholder representatives >and independent nominating committee appointees >(see ><<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>). >The Board directed that a transition to this new >structure be accomplished by January 2009. > >Several Council restructuring issues remained >unresolved. The Board is continuing its >discussions and intends to address these issues >at its next meeting on 30 September. There are >five major issue areas yet to be decided: (1) >the role of an independent third Nominating >Committee Appointee (NCA) that the Board has >decided will serve on the Council; (2) the >process for electing Council leadership (Chair >and Vice Chairs); (3) the process for filling >Board seats #13 and #14; (4) the voting >thresholds for various Council decisions as >proposed by the WG-GCR; and (5) general >implementation issues. (It is important to keep >in mind that the Board is actively considering >Council restructuring and additional ideas and issues could emerge.) > >To assist Board members in their deliberations, >Staff will be preparing an analysis and >recommendation for each of these remaining >decision points. I would like to include >additional community input in that process and >invite all GNSO constituencies, other ICANN >structures, and the nominating committee >appointees to share their views as >appropriate. For each of the four WG-GCR >recommendations outlined below I am requesting >each group to submit a one-paragraph statement >clarifying its perspective on that topic. I >also hope that each group will take the >opportunity to highlight in one paragraph what >they believe to be the most significant >implementation issues that will need to be >addressed (Issue 5). Note: your comments will >not be edited or summarized, but will be >collated and submitted directly to Board members >for their consideration. A copy of this >submission will be posted on the public GNSO email list. > >Any group intending to contribute comments >should submit them to me via email to ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org >by COB on 18 September (PDT). That will give >Board members adequate time before their meeting >to review your submissions. A copy of the Final >Report of the WG-GCR is attached for your >reference. The remaining issues also are >summarized below, but please reference the >report directly for the precise WG-GCR language. > >Issue 1 Role of the Third NCA: > >At it 28 August meeting the Board directed that >each voting house include one voting Nominating >Committee appointee (NCA). The Board also >directed that a third "independent" NCA continue >to serve on the Council a matter on which the >WG-GCR could not reach consensus. The Board has >not yet determined what the role, function or >status of that third NCA will be on the >Council. Ideas currently under discussion >include: making this NCA non-voting and not >assigned to either house (recommended by Staff); >making the third NCA voting (unclear yet how >this would fit into the bicameral voting >structure); including the third NCA as a voting >member of the non-contracted party house to >maintain a 6:1 ratio of constituency representatives to NCAs; > >Issue 2 Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair > >The WG-GCR proposed that the GNSO Council Chair >be elected by a 60% vote of BOTH voting houses >and that each house elect its own Vice Chair to >serve in that capacity. A WG-GCR non-consensus >compromise suggested that if that process could >elect no Chair, then a third Council-level >Nominating Committee Appointee should serve as a >non-voting Chair. The Board generally discussed >the leadership selection options at it 28 August >meeting, but did not reach a decision. Ideas >currently under discussion include: adopting the >WG-GCR proposal (recommended by Staff); adopting >the WG-GCR proposal as well as the proposal to >use the third NCA as a non-voting Chair if >needed; and have the Chair elected by a simple >majority of the full Council with weighted >voting (12 votes each for the contracted and >non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). > >Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats > >The WG-GCR proposed that, at the end of the >current terms for Board seats #13 and #14, the >contracted party voting house elect Seat 13 by a >60% vote and that the user/non-contracted party >voting house elect Seat 14 by a 60% vote. The >WG-GCR agreed that the two seats cannot BOTH be >held by individuals who are employed by, serve >as an agent of, or receive any compensation from >an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor >can they both be held by individuals who are the >appointed representatives to one of the GNSO >user stakeholder groups. Staff is exploring >concerns that changes in the Board election >methodology for Seats 13 and 14 as proposed by >the WG-GCR would have the effect of creating >Board members from each of the voting houses, >rather than Board members from the entire GNSO. >(All Board seats are to serve the interests of >ICANN's public benefit mandate, not the >interests of individual groups; the SO level >represents a view of an entire sector of the >ICANN community and there is concern that to >more narrowly define the parameters of selection >within an SO is inconsistent with the >non-representational capacity of the members >once they reach the board of directors). > >The Board did not have time to thoroughly >address this matter at its 28 August session. >Ideas currently under discussion include: >adopting the WG-GCR proposal; deferring this >issue and dealing with it as part of the Board >Review (which is ongoing); adopting a >Council-wide supermajority selection criteria; >adopting a method which uses a simple majority >of the full Council with weighted voting (12 >votes each for the contracted and non-contracted >party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). > >Issue 4 Voting Thresholds: >"The WG-GCR reached consensus on the following >collection of voting thresholds: "Create an >Issues Report (currently 25% of vote of >Council) either greater than 25% vote of both >houses or simple majority of one house >Initiate a PDP within Scope of the GNSO per >ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC >(currently >33% of vote of Council) -- greater >than 33% vote of both houses or greater than 66% vote of one house >Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per >ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC >(currently >66% of vote of Council) greater >than 75% vote of one house and a simple majority of the other >Approval of a PDP without Super-Majority >(currently >50% of vote of Council) -- Simple >majority of both houses, but requires that at >least one representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports >Super-Majority Approval of a PDP (currently >66% >of vote of Council) Greater than 75% majority >in one house and simple majority in the other >Removal of Nominating Committee Appointees for >Cause subject to ICANN Board Approval (currently >75% of Council): a) At least 75% of User/NCP >House to remove Nominating Committee appointee >on User/NCP House; b) At least 75% of Contracted >Parties House to remove Nominating Committee >appointee on Contracted Parties House; c) [At >least 75% of both voting houses to remove the >Council-level Nominating Committee appointee]. >All other GNSO Business (other than Board >elections) simple majority of both voting houses." >The Board did not have time at its 28 August >meeting to discuss these voting >thresholds. Staff has recommended adoption of >all voting thresholds noted in the WGGCR Report, >except for Category F, the threshold for removal >of an NCA. Staff has recommended that the Board >consider this threshold further as it continues >its related work on the NomCom Review and >improvement efforts. Additional ideas under >consideration include adding a voting threshold >for the approval of a charter for a PDP working group. > >Issue 5 Implementation > >At its 28 August meeting, the Board directed the >GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an >implementation plan that creates a transition to >a new bicameral voting structure by the >beginning of calendar year 2009. Board >discussion continues on how to ensure diversity >in each stakeholder group, whether specific >Board recommendations are needed to support >expansion and inclusiveness for new actors, and >whether the Board should encourage fostering >different representation. Questions about >whether additional guidance or requirements are >needed on the implementation plan, and >transition to the new structure by January 2009, >also are being explored. Comments about this >time frame, the issues noted, or about >particular areas that might require special attention are most welcome. > >Thank you for your continued involvement and input. > >Regards, >Denise > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org > >

1 0

Draft Answers to Sept. 19 GNSO questions.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 26, 2008

Sept. 26, 2008

Attached is a draft of the reply to the Sept. 19 questions on GNSO restructuring. The are based on my thoughts sent out the same day. Sebastian was the only person to comment, and the present document incorporates most of his comments. The official deadline is TOMORROW, Friday, Sept 26. Any comments should be made quickly. Alan

3 3

Re: [ALAC] Draft Answers to Sept. 19 GNSO questions.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 26, 2008

Sept. 26, 2008

I have received one comment suggesting related to the allocation of Council seats among Constituencies. Specifically, if the number of seats allow, each Constituency should receive at least one seat. I support this and will incorporate it into the document. Only a few hours left for comments. Alan At 25/09/2008 05:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Attached is a draft of the reply to the Sept. 19 questions on GNSO >restructuring. The are based on my thoughts sent out the same day. >Sebastian was the only person to comment, and the present document >incorporates most of his comments. > >The official deadline is TOMORROW, Friday, Sept 26. > >Any comments should be made quickly. > >Alan

2 1

ALAC Voting Results - Vote on ratification of the Statement on GNSO Restructuring (Response to Five Questions Related to Board Discussion of GNSO Restructuring)
by At-Large Staff Sept. 26, 2008

Sept. 26, 2008

Dear Members: Please be advised that a vote recently closed on the question: Do you believe that the Statement on GNSO Restructuring should be ratified by the ALAC? Has resulted in ratification of the statement, by a vote of 8-0 in favour. The results may be independently verified at: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=rDXC9gM6DxVRBeUwcCiM. The statement itself may be viewed electronically at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_response_to_gnso_restructuring _questions_al_alac_st_0908_1. The statement has been transmitted to the ICANN Vice-President for Policy Development. The Staff shall arrange the posting of the statement on atlarge.icann.org shortly. When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC members did not participate in the balloting: 1 Izumi Aizu 2 Annette Muehlberg 3 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro 4 Hawa Diakite 5 Robert Guerra 6 Vanda Scartezini 7 Fatimata Seye Sylla -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Election of ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board now open
by At-Large Staff Sept. 25, 2008

Sept. 25, 2008

Dear ALAC members, As requested by Cheryl, the election for the ALAC Board Liaison position shall start now. As is the standard convention during ALAC voting related to individuals, voting will be anonymous and open until Thursday, October 2nd at 2359 UTC. You will receive an email with your voting credentials shortly. The question to be put is: Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN for the 2008-2009 period? Possible answers are Wendy Seltzer, Beau Brendler or abstain. You may review the reference material made available by the candidates and the recordings of the presentation held on September 5th on the following web page: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?board_liaison_candidates_presentation Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2008

Sept. 25, 2008

As per my announcement today at the end of today's Council meeting, following is the solicitation for support and help sent to the ALAC and At-Large. It is not a definitive description of the issue, but rather a hopefully understandable summary for this who do not spend their days thinking about domain registration processes. The overall intent is to end up in an environment where registrants have a reasonable, predictable way to recover an expired domain regardless of whether the reason for expiration was lack of appropriate action on the part of the registrant, registrar or an act of some other third party. My understanding is that this was the original intent prior to the domain industry becoming such a large business in its own right. The ALAC is certainly interested in hearing from any constituencies who support the initiative, and in particular, any individuals who can help us craft the request for an Issues Report. Alan >Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:37:26 -0400 >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC >Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights > >Four weeks ago, Danny Younger raised the issue of the Redemption >Grace Period (RGP) with the North American RALO. A copy of his >e-mail can be found at >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?redemption_grace_period_danny_younger. > >In essence, about six years ago, the RGP was proposed and >implemented to allow a registrant to recover a domain name after it >had expired and been deleted by the registrar. The reason for the >deletion could be that a registrant did not receive the required >notices of expiry, or they were not sent, or they simply forgot. >Under the RGP, when a registry (such as VeriSign for .com) receives >a request to delete a name, it is put in a hold status for 30 days. >During this period, the name does not resolve, and if nothing else >had caught the registrant's eye before, this usually will. During >this time, a registrant can recover the name for a fee. The fee is >currently set $40 but can and generally is marked up by the registrar. > >The RGP was implemented voluntarily as a Registry Service by all of >the non-sponsored gTLDs. A registrar is not required to offer the >RGP however, so the existence of this registry service did not >guarantee that a registrant who neglected to renew could effectively >use the RGP. It was hoped that as Registrar contracts were >renegotiated, the requirement to make the RGP available would be >added, but this did not happen. A consensus policy could have been >created which would force them to offer the service, but this also >did not happen. > > From the point of registries, domains automatically renew, but the > registrar can reverse this retroactively during the "auto-renew > grace period" (ARGP - typically 45 days). > >Since that time the situation has changed in that registrars have >generally added conditions in their registrant agreements that give >the registrar the right to transfer or sell or auction an expired >domain to some other party (the so called "direct transfer" right). >Often, during the AGRP, they may monetize the domain temporarily to >see if it attracts much traffic and therefore has commercial value. >During this time, they *may* be willing to sell the domain back to >the original registrant. The price may depend on how much traffic >they saw in the interim. Once a value is determined, the domain may >be kept by the registrar (perhaps via a related company), or sold or >auctioned. Since the domain is never actually deleted at the >registry (it still maintains its original creation date), it never >gets a chance to enter the RGP. > >As complicated as this may sound, it is the short version. There was >an excellent tutorial on these practices given at the Lisbon ICANN >meeting in March 2007. A transcript can be found at >http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/transcript-tutorial-expiring-25mar0…. > >The NARALO has agreed that this is a good project to take on, and >has requested that the ALAC pursue it. The issue was on the ALAC >meeting agenda of September 9, but unfortunately time ran out before >we got to it. However, since that meeting there have been a number >of conversations that indicate that this is an issue of importance >and that there is sufficient interest among At-Large that ALAC >should pursue it. > >In summary, we are looking for a way to ensure that registrants have >a reasonably and fairly priced way to retain a domain name, even if >it had inadvertently expired in the recent past. We are essentially >looking at it from two main perspectives: > >- Impact on registrants who lose control of their domain name, >potentially with significant financial or other impact; and >- Impact on users who can no longer access web sites and services >that they rely on. > >If we an find sufficient interest in At-Large and the RALOs to >support this project, I would like to see the ALAC request an Issues >Report from ICANN staff, which is the first step in initiating a >Policy Development Process (PDP). Following the delivery of the >Issues report, the GNSO Council would need to vote to decide to >initiate a PDP. Informal conversations indicate there may be >reasonable support for this on Council; assuming ICANN staff decide >that this is an issues within the scope of the GNSO, initiation >requires only a >33% vote. > >If we work quickly, I believe we can formally decide to proceed at >the ALAC's October 14th meeting, and issue the request for the >Issues Report in Cairo. > >I solicit general statements of support from ALSs and RALOs, and a >few volunteers to help work on the request. Volunteers must either >be knowledgeable in the issues being discussed, or be willing to >learn very quickly. > >Alan > >PS For this who want to understand more of the history of the RGP, >you can refer to: >http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm >http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm >http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/redemption-topic.htm >http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#RedemptionGracePe…

1 0

ALAC Voting Results - Vote on ratification of the draft Statement on RAA Amendments
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 25, 2008

Sept. 25, 2008

Dear Members: Please be advised that the vote recently closed on the question: Should the statement on the RAA Amendments ( https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_raa_amendments_al _alac_st_0808_2) be ratified as an ALAC statement? Has resulted in ratification of the statement, by a vote of 9-0 in favour. The results may be independently verified at: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=kDLWRyDKwLbz9pPYhEEC. The statement itself may be viewed electronically at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_raa_amendments_al _alac_st_0808_2. The statement will be transmitted by the Chair of ALAC in due course. We shall also arrange the posting of the statement on atlarge.icann.org shortly. When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC members did not participate in the balloting: 1 Annette Muehlberg 2 Carlos Aguirre 3 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro 4 Robert Guerra 5 Thu Hue Nguyen 6 Fatimata Seye Sylla -- 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

1 0