September 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

GNSO Restructuring Issues - Sept 5th questions
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2008

Sept. 15, 2008

At the ALAC meeting today last Tuesday, I said I would take the lead in drafting a response to the questions on GNSO restructuring raised by the Board through Denise. You can find a copy of Denise's original e-mail right at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05441.html. Some of the questions already had partial answers in ALAC's formal prior submissions. In this draft, these have been augmented with the support of the ExCom and others. PLEASE NOTE: The deadline for formal submission is close-of-business Sept 18, so there is clearly not sufficient time for a formal vote, but all thoughts are welcome. Alan ---------------- Issue 1 Role of the Third NomCom Appointee (NCA) Having a non-voting NCA sets a bad precedent within ICANN. Assuming the voting proposed (similar) threshholds are accepted, it is unclear how the carefully crafted voting thresholds can accommodate having the NCA vote at on the Council only. Essentially, that NCA is playing the role of a Liaison from nowhere. Since the Board has set the House numbers as 12:6 before NCA, it makes some sense to allocate the third NCA to the User House. That gives all NCA's the same ability to influence outcomes, and returns to the normal state of NCA's being full voting members of the bodies to which they are appointed. Issue 2 Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair The proposal calls for a 60% vote from both houses, leading to the potential of deadlock. The proposed (minority) alternative (assuming the NCA is still on the main Council), the NCA option having that person be the Chair *MAYBE*, makes no sense at all. If the person will definitely be the Chair, the NomCom can attempt to find a person with the correct qualifications. [A quick poll of several NomCom delegates indicates they may not be too happy to be given that role, but perhaps that is moot.] To tell the NomCom that the person has to have a specific balance of criteria to be a good Councilor AND also needs to have organizational and group management skills to potentially be the chair is pushing it a bit. And will likely make it hard to recruit candidates who want to deal with that level of uncertainty. We favor the weighted voting option with one vice-chair (perhaps not from the same house as the Chair). Another alternative suggested is that each house elect a chair and they alternate, but that seems to be an administrative and logistical nightmare. Two vice chairs seems like overkill. Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats As already stated, ALAC would prefer a resolution where all Board members are elected by the entire Council. Essentially, we shared the same concern as those raised and stated more eloquently by the Board. Among the alternatives, we favor the weighted voting method. The WG discussed but did not ultimately put forward the idea that each two house might be responsible for nominating one of the positions, but it would be voted on by both - this may address the perceived inequality. It is important to also ensure that there is a viable transition process to get to the new methodology (there were some perceptions that the proposed WG methodology had a problem in that area). Another suggestion was that there be bi-cameral voting (perhaps 60% of one house and 40% of the other required). But that, as discussed in the section on Chair elections, could lead to deadlocks. Issue 4 Voting Thresholds The ALAC did not take a position other than to say there was a LOT of give and take by all parties to get to the proposed thresholds. With the exception of removal of an NCA, although some of the thresholds may end up being unworkable, it is not clear that a better set can be crafted at this point. With regard to the removal of an NCA, the ALAC had reservations, particularly with the removal on a house-level NCA by a vote of only that house. The term "for cause" made the threshold barely acceptable, in that the House would have to justify to the Board why the NCA was being removed. Nevertheless, if some activity is severe enough to warrant removal, it would likely be apparent to both houses, and requiring some level of support in both houses would be far more transparent. Issue 5 Implementation Implementation by January 2009 is very aggressive. Hopefully Draft Bylaws will be available quickly for comment and review. Stakeholder Group issues are indeed likely to require focus. As noted in the ALAC's statement to the Board submitted on August 13 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attac…) the ALAC feels that the new structure is sufficiently cumbersome that attracting new constituencies, and ensuring that the additional hierarchy of Stakeholder Groups does not add an onerous administrative burden is going to be difficult. In particular we noted: ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have to make it as easy as possible to create and operate new constituencies. The requirements they must meet must be reasonable and applied with consistency. These new entities must feel comfortable that they will be able to participate in the Policy Development Process as discretely identifiable bodies, at a level comparable to (and not subservient to) the long-established players (of course factoring in size). Without that guarantee, there is little reason for them to make the considerable effort needed to enter into GNSO processes. The new addition level of hierarchy moving from GNSO->Constituency to GNSO->Stakeholder Group->Constituency (or as per the consensus proposal GNSO->House->Stakeholder Group->Constituency) must be managed to minimize the need for additional complexity and additional volunteer effort. Thin layers will be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory. As noted in an ALAC statement to be sent to the Board prior to its September meeting, the ALAC feels that openness and transparency at the Stakeholder Group level will also be crucial.

2 1

Comments on the ALAC Review
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 14, 2008

Sept. 14, 2008

For those who may be interested, the comments period on the ALAC review is now closed and the comments can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-final-2008/. Note that for some reason, some comments submitted to ICANN have their attachment names destroyed, and this time it chose to do it to my comment. As shown in the text of my message, the attachment to my comment is an Adobe PDF. The filetype in the URL is BIN, so your browser may not open it properly. If you download it and open it with Adobe Acrobat, or rename it to ".pdf", it will work fine. It is not a virus or trojan! Promise. Alan

1 0

ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review.pdf
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 14, 2008

Sept. 14, 2008

Please find attached a format revised copy of the ALAC Overview Report on the ALAC Review that I submitted to the public comments list on the 12th. This format change and correction of several typos and grammar errors along with a change to minimum margin size has changed toe length of the submitted document from 17 pages to 13 but has not changed any context or meaning. This is the copy that should now be posted on our web and Wiki sites and I have forwarded it as a replacement copy for the file and public record as well as for the use of the ALAC Review WG be separate message to Denise Michel, Tricia Drakes and Patrick Sharry. I do apologise for the need to make these changes but it was just as important that the original was received in due time as that this corrected copy be used for the public record. CLO

4 3

Motion: Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 13, 2008

Sept. 13, 2008

Having seen no negative comments or suggestions for rewording, I move that the ALAC send the statement below to the Board. Can I please quickly have a second, so that staff can start a 7 day vote? Alan (I will be travelling and out of contact for most of a day, and perhaps more.) >=============================== > >The ALAC notes with pleasure that at its meeting of August 28, 2008, >the Board clarified and reaffirmed the requirement that >Constituencies within the restructured GNSO meet and continue to >meet principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness. > >Given that within the restructured GNSO, a principal entity will be >the Stakeholders Group, and that it is at this level that Council >seats will be allocated amongst its Constituencies, it is critical >that the mechanism for such allocation be completely transparent. > >Accordingly, the ALAC recommends that when the Bylaws are amended to >include references to Stakeholder Groups, that they too are obliged >to adhere to similar principles of representativeness, openness, >transparency and fairness.

2 1

Regional Advise on the Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities
by At-Large Staff Sept. 11, 2008

Sept. 11, 2008

Dear all, The Staff asked for regional advise from the North American RALO on the ALS application from the Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC). It was decided during the monthly NARALO teleconference on August 11th that the regional advise would be to approve the application if no dissent was sent to the list within seven days after conclusion of the meeting. Not having seen any negative comments on the NA-discuss list until August 18th, it is the Staff¹s understanding that the region intends the approval of the application. The application will therefore be submitted to the ALAC for consideration. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 10, 2008

Sept. 10, 2008

At its August 28th meeting, the Board approved a number of aspects of GNSO restructuring. Included in its resolution was the following: "The Board requests that existing constituencies confirm their status with the Board during the intervening time period, and requires constituencies to formally confirm their status every 3 years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article X, Section 5, subsection 3 of the ICANN Bylaws. This will be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness set forth in the ICANN Bylaws." This reaffirms and in fact strengthens the Board's oversight of GNSO Constituencies and is in line with a request we made to the Board through our Liaison. However, it is troubling that the statements are solely in reference to principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness of Constituencies, and not of Stakeholder Groups once they are defined in the Bylaws. I volunteered to draft a statement to the Board commenting on this and I propose the following statement to be sent to the Board at least one week prior to their meeting of September 30. I furthermore suggest the following time line for approval: - Comments received by Friday, Sept. 12, 1200 UTC - Revised statement issued and vote called by no later than Monday, Sept. 15, 2008 Alan =============================== The ALAC notes with pleasure that at its meeting of August 28, 2008, the Board clarified and reaffirmed the requirement that Constituencies within the restructured GNSO meet and continue to meet principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness. Given that within the restructured GNSO, a principal entity will be the Stakeholders Group, and that it is at this level that Council seats will be allocated amongst its Constituencies, it is critical that the mechanism for such allocation be completely transparent. Accordingly, the ALAC recommends that when the Bylaws are amended to include references to Stakeholder Groups, that they too are obliged to adhere to similar principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness.

4 3

Re: [ALAC] Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 10, 2008

Sept. 10, 2008

If I may note the conversation that I had with Cheryl, and also with the Staff in relation to this request. It has become the practice for the At-Large community to have at least a week, and often two weeks, to comment on a draft statement. I have let my colleagues know that asking a global community to respond using a bottom-up process to develop their view cannot really happen in less than several weeks. Where the issue at hand was of particular importance, or on an issue where there was likely to be differences of view, it takes longer than on other subjects. What I did suggest was that a preliminary response could be developed, subject to community review, for those instances where there was limited time in which a response could be developed. What I would hope is that the ALAC would not return to developing statements amongst itself and only allowing a handful of days for the ALS community to respond. So many of you have said that it is essential for the grassroots of the At-Large community to become more engaged in policy. May I submit that this goal is not awfully compatible with very short timelines for that same community to be consulted on an issue, especially one of this significance. On 10/09/2008 10:38, "Sébastien Bachollet" <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr> wrote: > I support this proposal. > > Sébastien Bachollet > Président > sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr > www.egeni.org > www.isoc.fr > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : mercredi 10 septembre 2008 07:50 > À : ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet : [ALAC] Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness > > At its August 28th meeting, the Board approved a number of aspects of > GNSO restructuring. Included in its resolution was the following: > > "The Board requests that existing constituencies confirm their status > with the Board during the intervening time period, and requires > constituencies to formally confirm their status every 3 years to > ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article X, > Section 5, subsection 3 of the ICANN Bylaws. This will be an > opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance > with the principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and > fairness set forth in the ICANN Bylaws." > > This reaffirms and in fact strengthens the Board's oversight of GNSO > Constituencies and is in line with a request we made to the Board > through our Liaison. > > However, it is troubling that the statements are solely in reference > to principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and > fairness of Constituencies, and not of Stakeholder Groups once they > are defined in the Bylaws. > > I volunteered to draft a statement to the Board commenting on this > and I propose the following statement to be sent to the Board at > least one week prior to their meeting of September 30. > > I furthermore suggest the following time line for approval: > - Comments received by Friday, Sept. 12, 1200 UTC > - Revised statement issued and vote called by no later than Monday, > Sept. 15, 2008 > > Alan > > =============================== > > The ALAC notes with pleasure that at its meeting of August 28, 2008, > the Board clarified and reaffirmed the requirement that > Constituencies within the restructured GNSO meet and continue to meet > principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness. > > Given that within the restructured GNSO, a principal entity will be > the Stakeholders Group, and that it is at this level that Council > seats will be allocated amongst its Constituencies, it is critical > that the mechanism for such allocation be completely transparent. > > Accordingly, the ALAC recommends that when the Bylaws are amended to > include references to Stakeholder Groups, that they too are obliged > to adhere to similar principles of representativeness, openness, > transparency and fairness. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- 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 3

Results of the Nominating Committee 2008 Appointment Vote
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Dear Members: I have the pleasure of informing you that the ALAC vote to appoint two of the five members of the Nominating Committee for 2009 has now completed. The results are as follows: African NomCom Representative: KOUBAA, Khaled (Incumbent): 7 votes (winner) LEVIN, Alan: 3 votes North American NomCom Representative: RADER, Ross (Incumbent): 7 votes (winner) DAILEY, Dharma: 3 votes. -- 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

Redemption Grace Period: For ALAC Consideration
by Brendler, Beau Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Greetings. Yesterday the NA RALO agreed that this proposal from Danny Younger was significant and important. We submit it today for ALAC consideration. I will mention it on this morning's call and refer you to this note for detail. Beau Brendler A proposal to the ALAC: Six years ago the ICANN Board resolved [02.83] to revise agreements > with the unsponsored TLD registry operators so as to implement the > Redemption Grace Period. The RGP is a time frame in which domain names > that expire go into a period of stasis after their deletion so that > inadvertent expirations can be corrected; the names are disabled > during this stasis period so that the registrant's attention is better > drawn to the situation. > > The Redemption Grace Period was widely heralded as an invaluable > protective service with ICANN Director Abril i Abril noting for the > record that "that the goal of the Redemption Grace Period is not > purely technical or to preserve registrars' businesses, but is > centered on preserving the legitimate interests of the registrants by > installing a safety net." > > Unlike other ICANN initiatives, the RGP Safety Net was not established > by way of the ICANN Consensus Policy process. The ICANN Staff > sentiment at the time was that "Resolving all of the perceived issues > surrounding domain-name deletions would likely require lengthy > policy-development processes that meet the strict requirements for > development of "Consensus Policies" set out in ICANN's various > agreements with registrars and registry operators. The Redemption > Grace Period proposal, on the other hand, allows a way promptly to > solve a specific, pressing problem with the cooperation of the > affected registry operators." > > Six years later, we have ample reason to believe that this error in > judgment, the failure to invoke the Consensus Policy process, has led > to a serious degradation in the degree of protection currently > afforded to the registrant community. Framed as a "registry offering", > it has been at the sole discretion of the registrar whether to offer > or not to offer the Redemption Grace Period service -- and many do > not. We have noted that some that offer the service will still deny > the registrant the protections of the RGP in the event that they > receive an aftermarket back-order for the expiring domain. > > What was once widely viewed as an ICANN consumer protection triumph is > today little more than a degraded product offering engendering a > morass of consumer confusion and aggravation, the situation having > been exacerbated by the collusion of aftermarket profiteers and > registrars to the point that (as indicated by Rob Hall at the Lisbon > Tutorial on Changes in the Expiry Process) domains of value no longer > enter the ICANN RGP. > > From the very beginning, it was the sentiment of many in ICANN's GNSO > community that a consensus policy approach was the best way way > forward. The Business Constituency's Marilyn Cade, for one, noted that > "consensus policy for RGP seems fully appropriate". We in the NARALO > share this point of view and ask the ALAC, in accordance with the > ICANN bylaws, to raise the issue for RGP consensus policy development > by action of the Committee to commence the Policy Development Process, > and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. > > We further ask that upon requesting the formulation of a Staff Issues > Report, that Staff be directed to supply the following within such report: > > a. a listing of all registrars noting whether they offer or do not > offer the RGP service; > > b. a listing, by registrar, of prices currently charged for the RGP > service; > > c. a listing noting which registries offer or do not offer the RGP; > > d. an assessment of the impact of aftermarket domain name practices on > the RGP > > e. per the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy 3.7.5.6 "If Registrar > operates a website for domain registration or renewal, it should > state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its > website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the > Redemption Grace Period", a listing of all such "statement" URLs of > each registrar that offer the RGP; > > f. the status of the Bucharest recommendation of the Technical > Steering Group that "ICANN's President should re-convene this (or a > similar) Technical Steering Group to review the implementation of the > Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible improvements to the > Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification for Stage 2 of > the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will enable > registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar." > > g. an assessment as to whether it is now possible to engage in > renegotiation of the charges for each restore command -- first set at > $85 by ICANN and thereafter at $40, but with development costs long > since amortized by the respective registries. > > We in the North American user community see great value in a universal > safety net and in the enhanced registrar competition that will allow > RGP prices to fall as consumers choose between the services offered by > competing "restoring" registrars. A consensus policy directive should > ultimately ensure that all gTLD domain name consumers have the blanket > protection that they deserve. We ask the ALAC to set us upon a path > that will bring this vision to fruition. ________________________________________ **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

ICANN meeting in Geneva, Mon 15 Sep
by Kieren McCarthy Sept. 8, 2008

Sept. 8, 2008

Hello all, For any of you going to Geneva next week for the IGF prep meeting, or if you live in Geneva or near to Geneva, can I cordially invite you to a special ICANN meeting on the Monday 15 September. The meeting is part of a series of regional consultative meetings we are running as part of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" consultation. What is that? It is a number of proposals developed by the President's Strategy Committee to address comments made in the recent Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpamidtermreview.html) There are three IIC documents, outlined at the Paris meeting in June and which have already been through one public comment period. A second comment period on revised documents is due to start very soon. You can find all three documents, as well as summaries of previous comments and input at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/ (English) http://www.icann.org/fr/jpa/iic/ (Français) http://www.icann.org/es/jpa/iic/ (Español) We expect revised documents to be available in English before the meeting. The goal of the meeting is to explain proposed improvements to the ICANN's multi-stakeholder model and hear participants' views. There will be opportunities for verbal and written input during this meeting, and this input will be thoroughly considered by ICANN's President's Strategy Committee for transmission to the ICANN Board. Members of the President's Strategy Committee and ICANN staff will be present: * Marilyn Cade (United States), President's Strategy Committee member * Yrjö Länsipuro (Finland), President's Strategy Committee member * Theresa Swinehart (ICANN staff), Vice President, Global and Strategic Partnerships * Massimiliano Minisci (ICANN staff), Regional Relations Manager for Europe, * Kieren McCarthy (ICANN staff), General Manager of Public Participation, ICANN DATE: Monday 15 September 2008 TIME: 08:00 sharp till 09:30am (a buffet breakfast will be available from 07:45) PLACE: Hotel Royal, 41 rue de Lausanne (room: Rousseau A), Geneva, Switzerland If you are interested in attending, please REGISTER by following this link: _________________________________________________________ http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/meetings/geneva.htm --------------- http://www.icann.org/it/jpa/iic/ (Italiano) http://www.icann.org/de/jpa/iic/ (Deutsch) http://www.icann.org/pt/jpa/iic/ (Português) ----------------- Thanks and I look forward to seeing you there Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org

1 0