March 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Draft statement on travel funding for approval at ALAC meeting - 24Mar09
by Alan Greenberg March 23, 2009

March 23, 2009

To be clear, the two "official" ones, that is, the ones that are specified in the ICANN Bylaws, are for the GNSO and the ccNSO. At the moment, I don't require separate funding, as I am already covered, and RUdi told us tha ttravel funding was not an issue when he put his name up for the ccNSO position. So in theory we could have two unused funding slots. Of course, we may discuss the appropriateness of funding Rudi *if* we actually get these requested funds. When we opened our Liaison slots last time, we said that we preferred committee members for two reasons: a) there would likely be better communications; and b) no additional travel funds would be required. I think that in many casees, the first reason will be the most important one. I am not sure what our chances are of making the other Liaisons more "official". The IDN one has indeed been VERY official, and for some years it also had travel funding. So bottom line, what we are asking for does give us some reasonable flexibility, and I would be reluctant to ask for too much more given that the chances are good that we might not even be able to use it. Alan At 23/03/2009 11:44 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >Hello, >My only concern is with the liaisons. >ALAC have 2 official ones' but also some "no-official ones'" >We need to work on "officialising" like ccNSO, IDN, NCSG/NCUC... and >hopefully one day GAC... >All the best > >Sébastien Bachollet >Président d'honneur - Isoc France >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 : vendredi 20 mars 2009 06:12 > > À : ALAC Working List > > Objet : [ALAC] Draft statement on travel funding for approval at ALAC > > meeting - 24Mar09 > > Importance : Haute > > > > As discussed in Mexico City, ICANN is in the process of developing its > > 2009-2010 Travel Procedure and Budget, and it was felt important for > > the ALAC to quickly identify its needs and formally submit them to > > ICANN. > > > > The draft document is attached in both PDF and WORD format. > > > > Please take whatever actions are necessary to be able to vote on this > > important measure at next week's meeting. You may forward certainly it > > to your RALO lists if appropriate. > > > > Although I am sure they are not very good, I have provided machine > > translations for: > > French - http://alangreenberg.org/ICANN/Travel-F.htm and > > Spanish: http://alangreenberg.org/ICANN/Travel-S.htm. > > > > Regards, Alan

1 0

"official" liaisons (was Re: Draft statement on travel funding...)
by Evan Leibovitch March 23, 2009

March 23, 2009

Sébastien Bachollet wrote: > My only concern is with the liaisons. > ALAC have 2 official ones' but also some "no-official ones'" > We need to work on "officialising" like ccNSO, IDN, NCSG/NCUC... and hopefully one day GAC.. This is not ICANN's problem but ALAC's. Most ALAC members are not so overloaded that they are prevented from also being liaisons; Indeed, requiring liaisons that are also voting members of ALAC would strike me as a Good Thing. The easiest way to make a liaison "official" is to choose that person from amongst existing ALAC members. Arguably, *every* member of ALAC should be required to provide specific liaision duty of one form or another -- either as one of the external ones Sébastien identifies above, or as a sub-committee chair (which is effectively an internal liaision). Doing so gives ALAC members specific responsibility and greater issues awareness (since it comes first-hand), while reducing the load on the committee-of-the-whole. Asking ICANN to fund liaisions who are not ALAC members is a convenient attempt to maximize the number of At-Large participants at ICANN meetings; however I do not consider it a responsible use of limited resources, especially if that funding can applied elsewhere within At-Large (such as outreach activities). Having "unofficial" liaisons is problematic for the same reason as having an executive committee. They are two different solutions of expediency, both designed to cover up the same deficiency at the core of ALAC. Can we please directly address the problem -- under-tasked, under-performing, ALAC members -- rather than just treating symptoms with costly and/or un-transparent superficial fixes? - Evan

1 0

Draft statement on travel funding for approval at ALAC meeting - 24Mar09
by Alan Greenberg March 23, 2009

March 23, 2009

As discussed in Mexico City, ICANN is in the process of developing its 2009-2010 Travel Procedure and Budget, and it was felt important for the ALAC to quickly identify its needs and formally submit them to ICANN. The draft document is attached in both PDF and WORD format. Please take whatever actions are necessary to be able to vote on this important measure at next week's meeting. You may forward certainly it to your RALO lists if appropriate. Although I am sure they are not very good, I have provided machine translations for: French - http://alangreenberg.org/ICANN/Travel-F.htm and Spanish: http://alangreenberg.org/ICANN/Travel-S.htm. Regards, Alan

2 1

Board Liaison Report, March 2009
by Wendy Seltzer March 23, 2009

March 23, 2009

March 2009: The Board met at the conclusion of the Mexico ICANN meeting, http://mex.icann.org/node/2689 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm At that meeting, the Board approved the global policy proposal for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space, chartered the IPC to convene an implementation recommendation team on IP protection in new gTLDs, and approved new Board Committees. The Board congratulated participants for a successful At-Large Summit. They opened several comment periods, including on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Ombudsman Framework, and noted that comment is ongoing on constituency charter renewals and new constituency proposals. The IPC's IRT has occasioned much discussion. It's important to note that that group is asked to "propose solutions to the overarching issue of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs." Those proposals must still be evaluated by the community, including At-Large, and then reviewed by the Board. The group is directed to "(i) distribute its draft report by 24 April 2009 to interested members of the community for comment, and (ii) produce a final report to be published no later than 24 May 2009 for consideration by the ICANN community at the Sydney meeting." More important than putting a member or two onto the IRT, it will be critical for the At-Large to analyze the recommendations that group makes and provide clear input to the Board whether the resulting recommendations are in community interest. <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#07> Discussions continue on GNSO restructuring, IDN-ccTLD fast-track, protection of geographic terms, and individual users in the GNSO. --Wendy -- 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/

1 0

Gratitude and Willness to Contribute
by Andres Piazza March 22, 2009

March 22, 2009

Dear Members of At Large Community: I send this e-mail in order to thank to all who sent a Congratulation or Support letter tu me about my official proclamation as LACRALO Chair last week. It was really meaningful to receive that kind of expressions. By the way, I repeat on this list my willness to cooperate with whatever iniciative or concern regarding to individual user´s interests in my region and worldwide. Warm Regards, Andrés Piazza Research Director AGEIA DENSI LACRALO Chair at ICANN Dot Mobi Policy Advisory Board Member HYPERLINK "http://ar.ageiadensi.org"http://ar.ageiadensi.org HYPERLINK "http://www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar"http://www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar HYPERLINK "http://advisorygroup.mobi/policy_advisory.htm"http://advisorygroup.mobi/pol icy_advisory.htm No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.23/2016 - Release Date: 21/03/2009 05:58 p.m.

1 0

RESEND: Proposed GNSO Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg March 20, 2009

March 20, 2009

[I never received the copy sent to the ALAC list so I am resending it. I apologize if some of you have received two copies.] Following the ALAC requesting an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, the Issues Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf) was produced and submitted to the GNSO Council. The Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to address how best to handle the Issues Report, and the DT has now submitted a motion to formally initiate a Policy Development Process. The motion will be considered at the next GNSO meeting on March 26. A copy of the motion is attached. If adopted without change, I believe it will be the first time (at least in recent history) where a PDP will be initiated with an expected outcome of both a Consensus Policy and advice to various parties on how to ensure that the Policy is effectively deployed. Alan

1 0

Proposed GNSO Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg March 20, 2009

March 20, 2009

Following the ALAC requesting an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, the Issues Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf) was produced and submitted to the GNSO Council. The Council created a Drafting Team (DT) to address how best to handle the Issues Report, and the DT has now submitted a motion to formally initiate a Policy Development Process. The motion will be considered at the next GNSO meeting on March 26. A copy of the motion is attached. If adopted without change, I believe it will be the first time (at least in recent history) where a PDP will be initiated with an expected outcome of both a Consensus Policy and advice to various parties on how to ensure that the Policy is effectively deployed. Alan

1 0

Summit WG3, and the ALAC position on gTLD guidebook
by Evan Leibovitch March 20, 2009

March 20, 2009

Hello, As a result of some very intense and constructive effort, the Summit Working Group #3 produced a concise yet substantive commentary on the new-gTLD applicant guidebook. I note that the agenda for the next ALAC meeting lists deadlines for a number of issues which have requested community feedback, including the gTLD guidebook which indicates a deadline of April 13. It would be appreciated if ALAC could discuss the issues presented as WG3's declaration at the Summit, with an eye towards adopting it as official ALAC policy and presenting such policy as timely comment to those working in the guidebook. The Summit WG3 considered a number of issues not reflected in current ALAC policy (such as the role of At-Large in the creation of the "Independent Objector"), and in one case recommends a reconsideration of one particular aspect of existing ALAC policy (the idea of a "phased-in" rollout of gTLDs). Given the large number of issues on the ALAC agenda for its March 24 meeting, I am concerned that ALAC may accidentally bypass by the excellent work of this WG in developing policy that I believe should be advanced, well in advance of the stated comment deadline. I know that at least I -- and I am certain, other WG3 members -- will be available and capable of advancing the provisions of the declaration. But I am not certain that the limited time available at the meeting will be sufficient, and postponement until a future ALAC meeting may mean bypassing the April deadline. What is the best way to proceed, now that I have brought this issue to ALAC's attention? It's not too soon for ALAC to start putting the Summit deliverables into use. Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair WG3 Rapporteur PS: Is it correct to assume that the five working groups at the Summit will evolve into standing ALAC committees (or fill ones that had been dormant)?

4 7

RAA approved
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2009

March 5, 2009

At its meeting in Mexico City, the package of Registrar Accreditation Agreement amendments was unanimously approved. This was following a GNSO meeting earlier this year where the package was rejected. The ALAC had previously formally supported the acceptance of the RAA, not because it was felt to address all of our concerns, but rather that the proposed changes were in their own right, very important for the community. Going into the Mexico City meeting, there was significant distance between the various constituencies (and ALAC) and in fact two very distinct motions were on the table. The level of cooperation shown to achieve this result speaks well to the collaborative model that ICANN uses. The new motion below approved the amendments, but at the same time sets a hard deadline for completing a Registrant Charter of Rights and puts the Registrars on record as committing to quickly begin working in good faith to address further changes to the RAA. Alan =================================== Motion made by Tim Ruiz Seconded by Kristina Rosette Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations; Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and Whereas, The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. Resolved: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009; Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later than July 31 2009; and Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009.

2 1

Fwd: REVISED: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg March 4, 2009

March 4, 2009

FYI. >To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: REVISED: 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, > >Attached is a slightly revised version of the report I submitted on >20 February 2008. > >The substantive part of the report is unchanged. The changes are >solely to the WG membership and footnotes on page 2: > >- Clarifying that the one WG participant who had not had the >opportunity to indicate support for the report by 20 February 2008 >has now done so. >- Noting that one WG participant on behalf of the ALAC has now filed >an Intent to form a Non-commercial constituency and so can be added >to that category of WG member as well. > >Regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0