February 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

Karl Auerbach wrote: > There is much history here - the root server operators, or rather the > operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other > systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN. > Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own > rules, adopt their own procedures. > > In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this > have done a spectacular job. I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it guides the present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its various constituencies) far more deeply involved in the root servers -- yet your history suggests that their independence has served RSAC well. It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with TLDs and IPV6 would also have a hand in the root servers. But based on what you and others have said, it seems like Westlake is recommending substantial repair to something that isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including ALAC -- have little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability. > But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of obligation. > There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root server operators > from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things. So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is the status quo not a viable option, considering the difficulty with which any worthy changes would be implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl describes that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in their opacity they have developed a reasonable process for good judgement. Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to teach ICANN as well. - Evan

2 1

Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/rssac/ The Westlake report on RSSAC has just been published. It is quite hard, in that it points out that RSSAC is essentially unaccountable to the ICANN community, and that it does not pro-actively advise on root server related issues, or potential ones. Among the recommendations are a request that RSSAC holds its meetings together with ICANN ones, and to enlarge the AC to include representatives from ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and ALAC. Obviously, the recommendations should be discussed, but the gist of the report is right on target. Patrick

1 0

Fwd: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

>To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO >Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ><langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >Dear Peter, > >On 11 December 2008, the Board of Directors requested a report on >the involvement of users in the GNSO, initially to be delivered by >24 January 2009, later extended to 20 February 2009. > >As per the Board request, the GNSO and ALAC facilitated the >convening of a working group with participants from the >ALAC/At-Large, GNSO and forming constituency communities. As the >ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, I am pleased to deliver this report on >behalf of the working group. > >My understanding is that the Chairs of both the ALAC and the GNSO >will request that their respective groups ratify this report before >or during the Mexico City meeting. > >Although a number of the participants entered into this working >group with some trepidation, it functioned remarkably well, all the >more so given the tight timeline. > >With warm regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by carlos aguirre Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Alan, thank`s again. the idea is to discuss this, with properly and enough time. I think is needed a special meeting for that, because ROP are a main rules wich direct ALAC life, and we do not try so fast. but, obviously I will respect the vote of mayority. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:02:18 -0500 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: RE: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write Carlos, can I ask why you are asking to stop the RoP re-write, instead of simply deferring the re-write of the ExCom section? The intent to do a re-write preceded the ExCom decision, and (in some opinions) needs to be done in any case. Alan At 19/02/2009 02:08 PM, carlos aguirre wrote: Alan: thank you for your advice. Yes, you have a point , my motion is definitly to stop the re-write the ROP, because we don´t know, because we didn`t vote FIRST if we want an Ex Com, because we don´t know, what exactly means, and what Ex Com will do, and what will be their obligations and faculties. So my motion is : stop re-write the ROP and, ask and vote if Ex Com is needed. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:06:48 -0500 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: RE: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write Carlos, at this point, the ALAC has voted for the creation and in that motion, instructed that more details rules be created. As Rapporteur, I am trying to follow those instructions. I also stated in my work plan that an overall RoP re-write was in my plan, and I had no objections raised to that. So I am trying to do that job. I note that the ExCom issue is a SMALL part of the overall RoP. If you feel that the ALAC should take some other immediate action (either to stop the re-write or abolish the ExCom with details on exactly what that means), I suggest that as an ALAC member, you make a motion to that effect. Alan At 19/02/2009 07:04 AM, carlos aguirre wrote: Dear Alan. Before talk about ROP changes, is neccessary as I said in last november, to decide first if Ex Com is a good idea. I think particularly to impose "de facto" a new body, with only a few ALAC members deciding for all of us, and in charge to decide what issues are urgent or important is not a democratic way to stablish something like that. But, I repeat, first of all is not legaly, because are not into ROP, and because was not voted the necessity of it creation. my best Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:57:53 -0500 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > Subject: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write > > We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group > in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about > what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already > identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance > Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. > > I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you > believe the RoP should be. > > Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person > while in Mexico City. > > You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English > French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. MSN Juegos Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. Internet Explorer 7 _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by carlos aguirre Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Alan: thank you for your advice. Yes, you have a point , my motion is definitly to stop the re-write the ROP, because we don´t know, because we didn`t vote FIRST if we want an Ex Com, because we don´t know, what exactly means, and what Ex Com will do, and what will be their obligations and faculties. So my motion is : stop re-write the ROP and, ask and vote if Ex Com is needed. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:06:48 -0500 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: RE: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write Carlos, at this point, the ALAC has voted for the creation and in that motion, instructed that more details rules be created. As Rapporteur, I am trying to follow those instructions. I also stated in my work plan that an overall RoP re-write was in my plan, and I had no objections raised to that. So I am trying to do that job. I note that the ExCom issue is a SMALL part of the overall RoP. If you feel that the ALAC should take some other immediate action (either to stop the re-write or abolish the ExCom with details on exactly what that means), I suggest that as an ALAC member, you make a motion to that effect. Alan At 19/02/2009 07:04 AM, carlos aguirre wrote: Dear Alan. Before talk about ROP changes, is neccessary as I said in last november, to decide first if Ex Com is a good idea. I think particularly to impose "de facto" a new body, with only a few ALAC members deciding for all of us, and in charge to decide what issues are urgent or important is not a democratic way to stablish something like that. But, I repeat, first of all is not legaly, because are not into ROP, and because was not voted the necessity of it creation. my best Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:57:53 -0500 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > Subject: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write > > We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group > in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about > what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already > identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance > Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. > > I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you > believe the RoP should be. > > Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person > while in Mexico City. > > You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English > French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. MSN Juegos _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar

3 2

Link to MP3 Added - WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and the MP3 recording is pointed to at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?05_february_2009. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

1 0

Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you believe the RoP should be. Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person while in Mexico City. You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. Alan

5 6

Draft report to Board on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

As you are no doubt aware, the Board of Directors asked the At-Large and GNSO Communities to jointly develop a set of recommendations on the subject of individual user involvement in the GNSO. We asked for a deadline extension to Friday, Feb. 20th, and that was granted by the Board. The draft statement is attached. The working group members were: GNSO: James Bladel, Avri Doria, William Drake, Robin Gross, Zahid Jamil, Milton Mueller, Mary Wong ALAC: Carlos Aguirre, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Adam Peake, Vanda Scartezini, Baudouin Schombe, Danny Younger (Danny Younger has chosen to disassociate himself from this Statement and the recommendations therein) Although the report is still open for correcting typographical and similar errors or for the addition of minority comments by WG members, it is essentially completed. I must say that when I entered into this process, I did not know if we could indeed get a statement that would be endorsed by such a wide variety of participants. For that reason, I am quite pleased with this outcome and commend all of the WG members for their hard work. Alan

1 0

gTLD applicant's guide - version 2
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

FYI http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-redline-18feb09-en.pdf Patrick

1 0

WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and I will post the location of the MP3 as soon as I get it. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

2 1