January 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

NCUC liaison report
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

* Of its three council votes, the NCUC voted 2-1 against approving the RAA "package." * Of the forthcoming list of WHOIS studies, the NCUC says its overall response will be that no further studies of WHOIS are recommended. * I incorporated the NCUC's stance on the ICC serving as one of the evaluators of new gTLDs, which is that such an organization, which is a business interest group, is not recommended. * No comment at the moment about the "rumor" of controversy between ALAC and NCUC on NCSG issues. I have no idea what's going on there and am not the source of the rumor. * At Milton's request, relayed information about NCUC membership fees to the NA RALO discussion list. ** 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.

2 1

Board liaison: nothing new to report
by Wendy Seltzer Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

The Board has not met since my last communication, and discussion has been light over the holidays. The next planned meeting is in February. Clearly, new gTLDs and response to various comments will be on the agenda. --Wendy

1 0

Details of the GNSO vote on approving the package of RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Here are the details of the vote. It was not passed by a super-majority. It is unclear what the next steps will be. Alan >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:29:04 -0800 >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) > motion >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >Dear Councillors, > >The voting is closed on the Registrar >Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was >before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. > >The final vote is as follows. >The motion did not obtain a supermajority. > >9 Votes Against: > >Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, >Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, >Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) >Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) > >Due to a misunderstanding in the process and >email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 >hours after the ballot was scheduled to >close. As the balloting had not been formally >closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. > >4 Abstentions: > >Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina >Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) > >14 Votes in favour: > >Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), >Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) >Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) >Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) > >Reasons for abstaining >====================== >Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about >the sequential approach to the RAA changes. > >Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way >the consultative process has been run, how the >input of registrants and users has been largely >ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. > >Kristina Rosette (IPC): >Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in >March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 >resolution, the RAA amendment consultative >process essentially excluded registrants and >users including brand owners, and ignored their >input. In addition to that fraud consultative >process, the Registrar constituency is now being >granted weighted voting on whether the >amendments should be approved. And finally, >because the highly restricted, narrow and >limited language resulting from that flawed >consultative process will render the majority of >the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. > >Terry Davis (NCA): >I have not been part of this process long enough >to take a position on this yet. I am still >understanding all the issues associated. > >Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' >vote. I believe we have an alternative as I >suggested, and have not heard any reason not to >do so. We could have a fast track working group >to determine which of these proposed amendments >truly have consensus of the Council. There has >not been any consultative process with the >Council to find out which amendments have full >consensus and could be adopted immediately, and >could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But >at the moment we do not have clear consensus on >this amendment package. Then there are a bunch >of open issues that are not mentioned in the >package at all and that we need assurance will >be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. >........................................................................................... > >Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) >Made by: Tim Ruiz >Seconded: Chuck Gomes > >Whereas: > >ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative >process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); > >The parties have arrived at a set of amendments >that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; > >Resolve: >The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA >amendments (documented in >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) >and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS background
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

In 's advance of tomorrow's call, I have found this document from the WHOIS working group from earlier in the summer. It does describe a number of the topics discussed for study, but is probably not as good as reading Liz Gasster's memo previously referenced. The NCUC, by the way, seems to be wholly in favor of no further studies of WHOIS. As you know, that's not my perspective, and in fact we have done some of our own research on the issue, as you know from my brief presentation in Paris. However, the studies that I think need doing have already been proposed by the GAC. So perhaps, since the GAC is doing them anyway, perhaps we could simply say that we support the GAC's efforts to study topics of concern to the user community. BB ________________________________________ From: Beau Brendler [beau_brendler(a)hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:12 PM To: Brendler, Beau Subject: ________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. Check it out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explor…> *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

2 1

status ALS applications
by Adam Peake Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Hi, Could staff tell us where we are with these ALS applications: Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Internauta Venezuela CETIC AJB Also understand NARALO asked for Knujon's application to be voted on at tomorrow's meeting, and noted the RALO's "explicit support". Doesn't seem to be reflected in the Google doc. I find the Google docs ALS application status page really hard to use. No way to keep the info on the same screen, no way to print. Should improve how we track applications. Thanks, Adam

1 0

GNSO vote on approving the RAA amendment package
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

The vote has not yet concluded, as there is the option for some e-mail votes. However, based on the vote so far (12 yes, 7 no, 4 abstain out of a total of 27 votes if I got it correct), the motion cannot achieve the 66% vote required. It is unclear what the next steps are. There were some other interesting twists during the discussion that I will present in my GNSO Liaison report. Alan

2 1

***SPAM*** Immeasurable wand of pleasure
by alac＠icann.org Jan. 2, 2009

Jan. 2, 2009

1 0