August 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Call with Rod Beckstrom Tuesday 2000 UTC - schedule change
by At-Large Staff Aug. 17, 2009

Aug. 17, 2009

Dear Members: After speaking with Cheryl earlier today, we wish to let you know that the call with Rod will be rescheduled to allow greater time for the agenda to be finalised. We have requested the same time and date one week later. As soon as we have confirmation we shall let you all know. Meanwhile, the existing call time tomorrow will be used for those interested, alongside ALAC's officers, to finalise the agenda for the teleconference. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for >> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting. > > The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart > from the tasting issue. > > Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another > chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line > with the actual cost of providing the registry services. And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar and water. But that's not the point. ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less. Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about artificial price controls. If people think they're getting gouged, let's give them some alternatives. I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier, so long as there are some assertions of registrant rights (and production of such a document is now underway, though slowly). There's nothing *requiring* a registry to be domainer-friendly. Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market, then let's address *that*. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Roberto Gaetano Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting. I think that the most important effect on consumers was the unavailability of names, that were used instead for different purposes. I agree with Alan, that ALAC can be proud of the fact that it demonstrated that it can indeed play a significant role. Incidentally, the ability of ALAC to play a significant role is one of the considerations on the table in the debate that is going on right now about having one or more Directors, elected by At-Large or ALAC, with voting rights. Cheers, Roberto Disclaimer: I know that Karl and myself have different views on the matter > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Karl Auerbach > Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 22:59 > To: At-Large Worldwide > Cc: ALAC Working List > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting > > On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > As the organization that started this entire policy > process, At-Large > > and ALAC can be proud of the results. > > I'm not so sure about that. > > The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the > churn but the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the > "domainers", who were getting a free ride, onto the backs of > the domain name buying public who were paying for the > transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due to the 5 > day name lock-up. > > When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to > pay a registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs > that the registry incurs in order to handle our transaction > and publish the name into the zone and operate the zone > servers. We pay that fee even if we relinquish the name in a week. > > That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were > 15,738,292 AGP names, that the .com registry was bearing a > cost (at that pegged $7 registry fee) of $110,168,044/month - > or about $1,322,016,528/year. > > There are two conclusions: > > Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US > that we were previously paying and which it is now retaining > as profit. > > Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level. > > Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston > fish - we are scrod. > > The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's > fiat registry fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted > by the registries and accompanied by no audit of actual > registry costs, is costing domain name users a very large > pile of money every year. > > It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a > believable, public, and deep audit of registry costs and to > adjust the registry fee component of domain name prices to be > in conformance with those costs. > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Please see the announcement and report (<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm) ICANN posted today about the impact of the AGP Budget Provision and the AGP Limits Policy on Domain Tasting. In short, the changes are dramatic. There were 17,668750 AGP deletes in June 2008. Following the ICANN budget levy on excessive deletes, the number decreased to 2,785,605. With the implementation of the AGP limit policy in April 2009, the total number of AGP deletes was 58,218, an overall decrease of 99.7%. Put another way, in June 2008, for .COM, there were 2,122,794 net new domains added, and an additional 15,738,292 domain names added and then AGP-deleted for an AGP delete rate of 741% In April 2009, there were 2,084,868 net new domains added, and an additional 37,519 domain names added and then AGP-deleted for an AGP delete rate of under 2%. Under the policy, an AGP-delete rate of 10% is allowed without financial penalty, per registrar, to allow for exceptional conditions. It was expected that few registrars would exceed this 10% and in fact in April only 22 registrars exceeded 10%, and there were only 432 excessive AGP-deletes. As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large and ALAC can be proud of the results. Alan

3 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

I find it fascinating -- and disturbing -- that one of our longest discussion threads of recent memory is not about policy, or even process, but assigning credit. If only we could have something even half as engaging regarding the most pressing current issue (IMO) which is proposing an alternative to the massive excesses of the IRT report. Without an alternative in hand, that piece of crap is the only approach to trademarks that ICANN senior staff and Board have in their hands. If that doesn't interest you, please find something else that does. There are certainly enough going on right now: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w Pick a working group and get involved, wake it up if you have to. ALAC has an acute shortage of people stepping forward to help on policy. We have an otherwise-needless Executive Committee formed merely because there are so many vacuums to fill, which means the same small core of people are being called upon to to most of the work. And then people complain about inclusiveness... Please -- those of you who have so keenly debated who deserves the honours for past actions -- consider that we have many more such potential actions ahead. Let's not make domain tasting the ONLY policy achievement we of which should be proud. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Patrick Vande Walle Aug. 13, 2009

Aug. 13, 2009

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT), "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were >> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit. >> >> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level. > > I don't believe that Verisign has ever offered a cost justification for > their registry fees. Considering that .COM and .NET use the exact same > infrastructure, it'd take some pretty creative cost accounting to justify > $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET. Allow me to be the devil's advocate here. In a capitalist environment, market prices are based on supply and demand. As long as customers are willing to pay the price being asked, there is no reason why VRSN would lower its prices. That is what a VRSN shareholder expects the company to do. If there was ever a trend that .com registrations would decrease because of the price, VRSN would adapt its strategy. The bottom line is that if you are unhappy with the price you pay, vote with your feet and get a cheaper domain name. It's a free market. There is competition. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Identica: http://identica.vande-walle.eu

1 0

Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines
by Gareth Shearman Aug. 12, 2009

Aug. 12, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > From: Internet Governance Project <info(a)internetgovernance.org> > Date: August 12, 2009 11:30:36 AM PDT (CA) > To: plenary <plenary(a)wsis-cs.org> > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance > Project Headlines > Reply-To: Internet Governance Project <info(a)internetgovernance.org>, > Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary(a)wsis-cs.org> > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire > list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for > specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > > > August 12, 2009 > > The House Committee Letter on ICANN: All politics is local > Four ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG charter > Are you listening, ICANN? > IGP files comments on proposed Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter > The 2009 NCUC Membership Drive: "Tell 'em Kieren sent you!" > Under pressure from trademark interests, ICANN undoes the GNSO reforms > When You Hear “Security,” Think “National Sovereignty” > New CEO stresses ICANN's role in cybersecurity > Search Internet Governance Project Headlines > The House Committee Letter on ICANN: All politics is local > > On August 4 the U.S. House Committee that oversees the Commerce > Department published their opinionabout ICANN and the impending > expiration of its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the Commerce > Department. The gist of the letter was that the Congressional > committee, headed by powerful Democrat Henry Waxman of California, > wants something like the JPA to become a permanent part of the > global Internet. > > The letter proposes that a new, "permanent instrument" between the > U.S. Commerce Department and ICANN be created. The list of things > the instrument should do was strong and sweeping. It not only allows > Commerce to periodically review ICANN's performance but also asks it > to "create a mechanism for ICANN's implementation of any new gTLDs > and internationalized domain names that ensures appropriate > consultation with stakeholders." It would ensure that ICANN will not > change its current policy toward indiscriminate access to Whois > information. > > > In other words, this is a rather explicit call for the basic > parameters of DNS policy to be made (or rather, re-made) in > Washington. > > Why? What reason was put forward to justify this rather stark > departure from the basic model of ICANN, which was supposed to be an > independent, multistakeholder global governance agency, accountable > to all the world's Internet users and not just those located in the > U.S.? One has to answer the "why" question in two separate > paragraphs. There are the real reasons, which can be read between > the lines, and there are the rhetorical reasons explicitly stated in > the letter. > > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > Four ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG charter > > On July 30 a majority of the ICANN Board took a fateful step away > from open public participation in domain name policy making. In a > decision that seriously impairs ICANN’s claim to be a multi- > stakeholder, bottom up institution, the Board voted 10-4 to impose > upon civil society groups a charter that they did not support and > which is designed to weaken and fragment their participation. > > The Board-approved charter for a Non Commercial Stakeholders Group > (NCSG) was drafted directly by ICANN’s staff, without any > consultations with the affected noncommercial organizations. When it > was put up for public comment the reaction was overwhelmingly > negative. And yet the majority of the Board (with several strong > dissents, see the “silver lining” below) didn’t care, and passively > complied with the direction fed to it by its Vice Chair and staff. > The staff did not make a single modification reflecting the views of > the overwhelming majority of the affected community. > > > The importance of this issue goes well beyond the NCSG; it relates > to the whole problem of public participation in ICANN. Is ICANN a > structure to facilitate policy making by any interested and affected > stakeholder, or is ICANN nothing more than a self-perpetuating > corporation that sees the public as a potential threat and public > participation as something to be carefully managed and controlled? > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > Are you listening, ICANN? > > A wonderful thing is happening on the ICANN public comment board. > Public interest groups from all over the world have mobilized to > express support for the NCUC charter proposal. What seemed to be an > obscure procedural issue months ago has attracted worldwide > attention. Civil society groups are objecting strongly to the ICANN > management's attempt to manipulate and control its allegedly "bottom > up" policy making structures. These are not your standard two-line > ICANN public comments, "I support this, I hate that." These are not > your usual commenters, the same ICANN insiders who have held the > same positions in the GNSO for 10 years. The entries are from new > people, many of the comments are unusually long and articulate, and > motivated by a sense of disbelief and injustice. > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > IGP files comments on proposed Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter > > The IGP filed comments today in ICANN's second proceeding on GNSO > Stakeholder Group Charters. In its comments IGP identified both > substantive issues in the revised NCSG charter proposal drafted by > ICANN policy staff, as well as procedural flaw in ICANN's > proceeding. In light of these concerns, IGP asked that ICANN > immediately drop its attempt to impose its revised NCSG charter > proposal, and instead reinstate the original Noncommercial > Stakeholder Group (NCSG) charter proposal submitted by the NCUC for > consideration by the Board. > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > The 2009 NCUC Membership Drive: "Tell 'em Kieren sent you!" > > A few days ago we described the discrimination and barriers ICANN’s > Board and staff have unjustly placed on civil society representation > in ICANN. In a reply on our blog, ICANN’s Director of Public > Participation, Kieren McCarthy, made an attempt to be constructive. > After implying that hundreds of thousands of people should be > actively involved in the GNSO, he stated, “Now if you want my help > in getting those people in, just ask - that's my job after all. But > I've never been asked by anyone in ICANN …to help them go get more > people. I'd be happy to do so.” > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > Under pressure from trademark interests, ICANN undoes the GNSO reforms > > A little-noticed outcome of the Sydney ICANN meeting (overshadowed > by the excitement surrounding the selection of its new CEO) was a > shockingly flagrant display of how arbitrary and unfair ICANN can > be. A year ago a Board Governance Committee recommended, and the > full Board adopted, a proposal to give civil society and commercial > user interests the same number of votes (6) on the GNSO Council. The > action was intended to correct what was widely perceived as an > indefensibly unfair distribution of votes, in which trademark/ > commercial interests were given nine votes and noncommercial > interests only three. The rebalancing was first proposed in an > independent, expert evaluation of the GNSO by the London School of > Economics, and later endorsed by the Board. A July 2008 GNSO > committee - which included representatives of the trademark and > commercial users - also endorsed the idea of representational parity. > > But when faced with the prospect of equal representation of > commercial and noncommercial user interests, the commercial user > groups revolted. Having lost the fight against parity on principle > grounds, they shifted tactics and "went negative," claiming that the > Noncommercial Users Constituency was not "representative enough" and > did not warrant additional representation. The staff and Board were > inundated with non-stop criticism of this sort for months. Numerous > threats about withdrawing from the GNSO were made. > > And yet, in Sydney the Board's Structural Improvements Committee > turned a deaf ear to the vibrant new participation and caved in to > the incessant pressure of the commercial interests. Two decisions, > almost unbelievable in the degree to which they discriminate against > civil society and completely ignore public comments, emerged from > the Sydney meeting. > > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > When You Hear “Security,” Think “National Sovereignty” > > The Obama administration is making security a high priority. > However, prioritizing security goes contrary to Internet > privatization, multi-stakeholderism, civil society, and even > international cooperation. > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > New CEO stresses ICANN's role in cybersecurity > > One summer sport in Internet governance is speculating on what > direction ICANN’s new CEO will take it in. Making the media rounds > yesterday on Fox and Lehrer News Hour to talk about the recent DDoS > attacks on US and S. Korea government and commercial websites, new > CEO Rod Beckstrom pushed how the response to cyber attacks is a > coordinated effort, he also alluded to ICANN's role in similar > attacks. Responding to a question on the News Hour about the USG > policy response to dealing with cyber attacks, Beckstrom highlighted > the critical role of ISP filtering, and identified the "organic" as > well as "somewhat structured" coordination which occurs during a > typical response. More interestingly, he plugged ICANN's > facilitating role. > > ICANN, as the global Internet corporation that handles the naming > and address for every mailbox in the Internet globally, over 200 > million, we have relationships with every single country in the > world and play somewhat of a diplomatic role when these things > occur, particularly if they affect the naming and addressing system, > which this one doesn't yet, but it involves multiple countries. > While there are some technical inaccuracies in his statement > (domains are not “mailboxes” and ICANN doesn’t actually have formal > relations with every country in the world) producing accurate > television sound bites is really tough. But Beckstrom correctly > points out the limitations of ICANN's role in resolving cyber attacks. > So far, ICANN's role has largely been as a facilitator. E.g., in the > ongoing cooperative effort against the Conficker worm, the security > community determined preemptive barring of domain transfers and > registrations in affected TLD registries as a mitigation tactic. > ICANN's role was largely to communicate this to TLD operators. It > took the agreement of ccTLD operators to put the response in place, > because in reality, ICANN has very little authority over the ccTLDs > business and operational practices. (with gTLDs it has almost > complete contractual governance and can even take away the > assignment after a period of time) Because of "national sovereignty" > claims most ccTLDs have very limited contracts with ICANN, and there > are clear limitations to using ICANN's authority to enforce > stability and security on the Internet. > > > View the News Hour interview: > > And the Fox interview (which dutifully follows the First Law of > Cyberwarfare): > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > > Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Internet Governance > Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe > Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau > Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary(a)wsis-cs.org > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum]
by Adam Peake Aug. 8, 2009

Aug. 8, 2009

Nick, Rob Thanks for the response, but it doesn't directly answer the question asked on the EA RALO call. I read the caution and disclaimer in the staff summary, I expect Bill did too. But the particular quote from Cheryl's comment uses the words "we" and "our", hence, I think, the confusion. The relevant part of the summary again: > >"Finally, although the majority of comments were >strongly in support of returning to the original >NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC's >NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the aims of the >new GNSO Model and the Boards criteria, which we >support, and believe is (with the additional >version changes as at July 19th ) being >essentially met.² Continuing in this vein, ALAC >noted, ³Maturity and development of the new >design GNSO and specifically the parity and >viability of the User House will benefit greatly >with the fresh start°o this Charter in our >opinion provides and it should be noted that in >it we can see that the opinions and views >brought forward in our processes, activities and >meetings on the matter have been recognised, >heard and considered.² " > and as I said, I understood Bill's question as: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. What is the answer? From your reply it seems to be no. Correct? And if the answer is no I hope we can simply say so on the public forum and to the Board who received the summary. And yes, using "ALAC "to identify Cheryl's comments is of course confusing, ALAC has meaning as we all well know. (Sending this to the ALAC list where I sent my email rather than ALAC internal and including my original message so context is still understood.) Thanks, Adam At 7:48 PM +0200 8/7/09, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >Dear All: > >As a couple of queries have come in from Bill >and Adam with respect to the staff summary of >the NCSG public comment period, Rob has sent >along the below. > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Clarifications Regarding Staff >Summary-Analysis of Stakeholder Group Charter >Public Forum Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 08:50:47 >-0700 From: Robert Hoggarth ><mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org><robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> >To: Nick Ashton-Hart ><mailto:Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org><Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> > > >Clarifications Regarding Staff Summary-Analysis >of Stakeholder Group Charter Public Forum Dear >Nick: > >I understand that there have been some recent >discussion within the At-Large community >regarding the Staff Summary/Analysis (S/A) of >the submissions in the GNSO Stakeholder Group >Charter Forum that closed on 24 July.- ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder >- and particularly the reference the S/A >document makes to the comments submitted by ALAC >Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr. > >As the staff person responsible for that >document, I wanted to make sure that I cleared >up any potential confusion in the attribution >assigned to Cheryl¹s submission in the S/A. At >the beginning of every S/A document we clearly >include the caution to the reader that: > >³This document is intended to broadly and >comprehensively summarize the comments of the >various contributors to this forum but not to >address every specific argument or position >stated by any or all contributors. The Staff >recommends that readers interested in specific >aspects of any of the summarized comments or the >full statements of others refer directly to the >originally posted contributions.² > > >Further, with respect to the specific comments >submitted by Cheryl, I reproduced verbatim the >disclaimer that she provided at the top of her >submission. Footnote one at the beginning of >the S/A document reads: > >³[1] The Submission by Cheryl Langdon-Orr >specifically noted the following disclaimer, >This comment is intended to ensure that the >Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is >aware of and takes into account in this current >public comment period the previous activities, >views and opinions, including Advice to the >Board, and ratified Statements of the At-Large >Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the At-Large >Community with specific reference to the >development of the new structure of the GNSO, >its Council and the Stakeholder Group model. >This is not a formal or ratified statement or >comment per se but rather a synopsis of those >previously provided in various fora to date.¹ >For identification purposes this document uses >the ALAC¹ initials to refer to the submission.² > > >If for any reason, Cheryl would like to clarify >her comments or if she thinks the initials I >used to identify her comments were >inappropriate, please have her send me an email >at <>robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org and I will work >with the web-admin and tech-support teams to >re-open the Forum record to insert any >clarifications she might want to make to her >submission. > >Besr, > >Rob Hoggarth > > > > >-- > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Nick Ashton-Hart > >Director for At-Large > >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 > >USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 > >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > >Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 > >email: <mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > >Win IM: ><mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com >/ AIM/iSight: ><mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com >/ Skype: nashtonhart > >Online Bio: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > >At 7:00 PM +0900 8/8/09, Adam Peake wrote: >>Hi, >> >>Just read the transcript of the August 4th >>call. Seems to have been a bit of confusion >>over a question raised during the EU-RALO call >>a few hours before. >> >>Sébastien mentioned that Bill Drake asked for >>clarification about text attributed to ALAC in >>staff's summary of charter public comments on >>the GNSO stakeholder charters. >> >>The staff summary says: >> >>> >>>"Finally, although the majority of comments >>>were strongly in support of returning to the >>>original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored >>>the SIC's NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the >>>aims of the new GNSO Model and the Boards >>>criteria, which we support, and believe is >>>(with the additional version changes as at >>>July 19th ) being essentially met.² Continuing >>>in this vein, ALAC noted, ³Maturity and >>>development of the new design GNSO and >>>specifically the parity and viability of the >>>User House will benefit greatly with the >>>fresh start°o this Charter in our opinion >>>provides and it should be noted that in it we >>>can see that the opinions and views brought >>>forward in our processes, activities and >>>meetings on the matter have been recognised, >>>heard and considered.² " >>> >> >> >>(staff summary available here >><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00074.html>) >> >>Bill's question was: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. >> >>My view is if the answer's no we should ask >>staff to correct the summary. And inform the >>board as the summary was apparently the main >>information board members had before them when >>they voted on the stakeholder charters. Can we >>please be clear, yes or no. >> >> >>Cheryl, the transcript quotes you as saying: >> >>"And that would be where people such as Bill >>and Adam -- who would go back and read minutes >>-- would see a variance between what was >>recorded and what actually happened. That's why >>the minutes of the 28th of April 2009 need to >>be amended." >> >>I don't really understand the context of your >>remark, but you'll perhaps recall that in our >>May 26th call I commented on what I thought was >>the poor quality of the April 28th minutes. >>Once minutes are agreed we need to be careful >>about amending them without the committee being >>informed. >> >>I am beginning to think that summary minutes >>are still necessary. The transcripts (and >>recordings) are very useful, but they do not >>constitute a clear record of what action was >>taken, etc. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 >

1 0

Aug 4th transcript - question
by Adam Peake Aug. 7, 2009

Aug. 7, 2009

Hi, Just read the transcript of the August 4th call. Seems to have been a bit of confusion over a question raised during the EU-RALO call a few hours before. Sébastien mentioned that Bill Drake asked for clarification about text attributed to ALAC in staff's summary of charter public comments on the GNSO stakeholder charters. The staff summary says: > >"Finally, although the majority of comments were >strongly in support of returning to the original >NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC's >NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the aims of the >new GNSO Model and the Boards criteria, which we >support, and believe is (with the additional >version changes as at July 19th ) being >essentially met.² Continuing in this vein, ALAC >noted, ³Maturity and development of the new >design GNSO and specifically the parity and >viability of the User House will benefit greatly >with the fresh start°o this Charter in our >opinion provides and it should be noted that in >it we can see that the opinions and views >brought forward in our processes, activities and >meetings on the matter have been recognised, >heard and considered.² " > (staff summary available here <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00074.html>) Bill's question was: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. My view is if the answer's no we should ask staff to correct the summary. And inform the board as the summary was apparently the main information board members had before them when they voted on the stakeholder charters. Can we please be clear, yes or no. Cheryl, the transcript quotes you as saying: "And that would be where people such as Bill and Adam -- who would go back and read minutes -- would see a variance between what was recorded and what actually happened. That's why the minutes of the 28th of April 2009 need to be amended." I don't really understand the context of your remark, but you'll perhaps recall that in our May 26th call I commented on what I thought was the poor quality of the April 28th minutes. Once minutes are agreed we need to be careful about amending them without the committee being informed. I am beginning to think that summary minutes are still necessary. The transcripts (and recordings) are very useful, but they do not constitute a clear record of what action was taken, etc. Thanks, Adam

1 0

Two Resolutions Open for Comment Prior to Voting
by At-Large Staff Aug. 5, 2009

Aug. 5, 2009

Dear Members: At the Special Session of the ALAC on 4th August, the Chair asked that two resolutions be carried over for five days of comments from all of you prior to being put to the vote. Accordingly, if any of you have any edits to propose, you are kindly requested to do so on or before 10th August at 1800 UTC. The best way to do it is to leave a comment, via the comment button, at the URLs below. The resolutions are as follows: *Resolution on Creating an At-Large Review WG Implementation Plan (AL.ALAC/RES.0809/1)* https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?resolution_on_creating_an_at_large_revi… The ALAC endorses the following process proposed by the Staff, in order to create a plan for implementing the recommendations of the At-Large Review Working Group's Final Report as accepted by the Board of ICANN at its June 2009 meeting: 1. Staff will create a document showing the recommendations, at a high level. 2. Underneath each major recommendation, the staff shall propose an initial list of those activities or improvements to processes which seem relevant to that recommendation. 3. For each activity or improvement, a high level relative priority will be suggested ('near term' - 3-6 months; 'medium term' - 6-9 months; 'longer term - 9 months or longer). The premise used in developing the relative priority will be that the community does not want to spend a majority of its time or energy engaged in process improvements, and that it is therefore important the work undertaken is not to the detriment to the community's other priorities. 4. All of the above would then be provided for the whole At-Large community to review, for a 30-day period. During that time, community members could propose the addition of new subjects, deletion or modification of existing subjects, ask questions and provide any other comments they think relevant. 5. During the comment period, special purpose teleconferences would be organised for community members to gather and discuss all of the above, and provide additional input and ideas. 6. At the end of the comment period, a new version of the document would be produced incorporating the views expressed. This could then be subjected to a vote of the ALAC; at the same time, the staff could begin to look at the resourcing of the various initiatives. The objective of this process is to ensure that a igh-level plan for implementation of the review working group proposals approved by the Board would be complete in good time for the Board to review it at its Seoul meeting. This timeline also facilitates discussions at the face-to-face meetings in Seoul on the various elements the plan contains. *Resolution on Transmittal and Announcement of Adopted ALAC Statements and Advisories (AL.ALAC/RES.0809/2)* https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?resolution_on_transmittal_and_announcem… The ALAC, in order to further improve and standardize its bottom-up Policy Advice Development, resolves upon the following process to ensure that ratified ALAC Statements are transmitted to Public Comment processes, provided to the Board as required, and announced to the At-Large Community. When an ALAC Statement has been ratified, the Staff will send the Statement to the following recipients: * The member of staff responsible for the Public Consultation (if the statement is in relation to a public consultation), and; * The official address for submitting comments to the same where relevant, and; * The Secretary of the ICANN Board of Directors, and; * The Vice President of Policy at ICANN, and; * The At-Large Staff address, and; * The ALAC Board Liaison, and; * The ALAC-Announce list. The Staff will announce all ratified Statements on the news and the correspondence section of the At-Large website as appropriate. The text of these communications is to include the following information: * A brief overview of the adoption process of the Statement with a reference to the author of the original Statement and the date when it published for comments by the At-Large community. It will further be noted when the ALAC vote took place, what the result was of said vote was, and where the result can be verified and reviewed. * Links to the original version of the Statement as well as all revisions and the final ALAC Statement. Also, to facilitate the comparision of different versions of the Statement, a URL highlighting the changes between the different versions will be linked to the communication. * A notification that the document also serves as an official ALAC Advisory to the ICANN Board of Directors, where that is the case. Where the response is to an open Public Consultation, the notification will make clear that a copy is being provided to the Board as a courtesy, on the basis that the ALAC is an advisory committee of the Board. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0