November 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: FW: letter to ICANN Board new gTLDs Nov. 22 2010
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Hmmm this is a take 2 of the forward the other one has been cued to send from my outbox for many hours so it seems perhaps this fresh attempt will succeed... Note here the specific issues raised regarding the work of the Rec 6 CWG... Much more on this I assume will unfold in Cartagena The ICANN reply FYI is found here ( http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf) it addresses/lists actions on MANY matters but from a Rec 6 CWG you should look to pages 8(end) 9&10... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> Date: 24 November 2010 10:02 Subject: FW: letter to ICANN Board new gTLDs Nov. 22 2010 To: cgomes(a)verisign.com, ceo(a)auda.org.au, langdonorr(a)gmail.com Dear all, I am attaching the letter from the GAC to the Board, containing comments related to new gTLDs. Heather

1 0

Question for Candidates missing a reply on Candidate Community Forum
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Dear All, I have been reading the answers to the questions asked from candidates with great interest. For those who have not yet cast your vote, they are linked from: https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Director+Candidate-Comm… Whilst reading through the questions asked by EURALO, I noticed a misunderstanding a couple of days ago and made a comment about it, but it doesn't appear that my comment was taken into account. https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Candidate-Community+For… On that page, the last question asked was: <<<"A general question, but first for Alan. The ATRT's proposed recommendations include: "ICANN should establish [by INSERT DATE] formal mechanisms for identifying the collective skill-set required by the ICANN Board including such skills as public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Emphasis should be placed upon ensuring the Board has the skills and experience to effectively provide oversight of ICANN operations consistent with the global public interest and deliver best practice in corporate governance." 1. What skill sets do you feel currently missing from the board and how will your skills fill those gaps? 2. Please describe your experience with the following, as relevant to ICANN's mission "public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution".">>> The question was meant to be read during the conference call, and I believe that "first for Alan" meant that Alan should be first to reply; but other candidates interpreted this as being a question only for Alan. The sentence referring to "only for Alan" was for the previous question. I wonder if we can obtain the reply from Pierre and Sébastien, please? Please update your reply on: https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Candidate-Community+For… There's still just about 24H until voting closes for our EURALO ALSes and I think it would be interesting to see the answers for these questions. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

4 3

Fwd: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Draft Progress Report
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Please find attached an 'advance' / draft copy of the Progress Report from the ccnso-idnpdpwg1; This will be announced and out for comment in thre usual ICANN way but is provided here so that RALO's, your ALSes and of course the ALAC can begin their review, discussion and feedback towards responses as soon as possible. More on this in Cartagena... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: 24 November 2010 06:18 Subject: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Draft Progress Report To: "ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org" <ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org> Dear all, Included is first draft of progress report. Purpose of the report is to inform the community of progress made so far on the criteria and requirements and seek input. The report contains the principles and decisions and substantial notes from the decision documents. I have also updated the introduction to describe the working group activities and methodology so far. We have already created a forum as agreed on the call last week. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

DRAFT Statement on new Applicant Guidebook (AG) INPUT / Edits / COMMENTS please.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

ALAC Members (including those taking office in Cartagena) and Regional Leaders / Liaisons, please see the link to the wiki page below (a snip from another email exchange with latest version edit etc., from be gTLD WG activities earlier today/ yesterday.. Please use the comments section of the page to contribute to the final drafting of this WG product into a Statement of the ALAC that we can ratify in our F2F meeting(s) in Cartagena. Your early contributions would be most welcome as many of us will be travelling soon and having a near final draft together by the time we arrive at the meeting and work further on it in our Sunday meeting would be most important... Thanks you Evan and the team who have contributed (mainly the new gTLD-WG) this drafting is greatly appreciated... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007 -2010 <snip> "... ... the statement that is now on the At-Large Wiki. It incorporates changes made during yesterday's community drafting call. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+F… - Evan <end snip>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Moves to Renew JAS Charter
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Your thanks are most welcome and I have passed them on in c.c. to the Working list in this reply... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 November 2010 22:35, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > Dear Cheryl, > > Please extend my thanks to ALAC for their unanimous support for the charter > proposal we presented. I am heartened by this show of support, not only for > the working group but for the work we doing to try and alleviate the > problems that would be faced by those with financial need, especially those > from from developing economies, in applying for a gTLD in the coming round. > > With thanks and best regards, > > Avri Doria > Co-chair Joint SO/AC Working Group on Support for New gTLD Applicants > > On 24 Nov 2010, at 11:56, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > > Dear Avri, Dear Evan, > > > > The At-Large staff would like to inform you that the At-Large Advisory > Committee moved to renew the charter of the Joint SO/AC Working group on > support for new gTLD applicants. > > > > The motion was passed unanimously by the members of the ALAC at their > monthly teleconference on 23 November 2010. > > > > You find the Motion to Renew the JAS Charter attached to this mail. The > ALAC welcomes any comments the JAS may wish to make by reply. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella > Gruber-White > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff at atlarge.icann.org > > <Motion to renew JAS charter 23 November 2010.pdf> > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] NCSG + ALAC => Cartagena
by Beau Brendler Nov. 22, 2010

Nov. 22, 2010

count me in...time for a unified front...going through "channels" doesn't work very well, though it's taken me perilously too long to figure that out -----Original Message----- >From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >Sent: Nov 18, 2010 4:14 AM >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [ALAC] NCSG + ALAC => Cartagena > >Hi > >Alan and I chatted a little about whether we should try to organize an ALAC/NCSG social thing in Cartagena, but then I was traveling with spotty connectivity for a couple weeks and didn't follow up. NCSG had it's monthly meeting the other night and people expressed interest, so now I'm circling back to see whether there's interest in ALAC too? Of course, if a whole evening with dinner is too much to squeeze in, we could just do an end of the work day pre-dinner meet in the hotel bar, like 6-8pm or whatever. > >Please cogitate and let me know? > >Thanks > >Bill > >Begin forwarded message: > >> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >> Date: October 30, 2010 8:40:54 AM GMT+02:00 >> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> Subject: Re: NCSG + ALAC => Cartagena >> >> Well, there are in fact some things on which coordination would be logical, but given the recurrent difficulty of organizing something and the perhaps related shadows of all the histories involving various individuals, I tend to think the most unifying approach is to avoid unified inter-org meetings, instead gather socially, and then the various pairs and such who work well together can socialize and later build on that. In other words, I think incremental, fragmentary trust/collaboration building is the way to lay a foundation from which broader comity and coordination can eventually evolve. And anyway, people like to party… >> >> Sat-Sun is GNSO stuff, Tuesdays is for tribes and loud music, Wed gala, Thursday people are often moving into see the town mode. So Monday is always the main option, at least on the NC side. But if memory serves ALAC folks often do ISOC stuff then, no? >> >> Anyway, with enough advanced warning I can probably sell Monday or Thursday night, or failing that just a end of the day drink in the hotel bar before people head to evening activities. Last time we waited until everyone already had plans. >> >> So poke around and let me know? >> >> BD >> >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> >>> Certainly worth a try. I presume you are talking something more on the social side rather than a scheduled meeting - right? >>> >>> I know that we have some sort of ALAC or At-Large event on Thursday evening, so that reduces the number of possible times evenings to Monday and Tuesday (haven't heard if there is the becoming standard unbearably-loud-music-night this time). >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> At 29/10/2010 08:58 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Shall we try it again? It would seem particularly apt now that there's been various productive collaborations and some of the frictions are further in the past etc… >>>> >>>> BD > >*********************************************************** >William J. Drake >Senior Associate >Centre for International Governance >Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies >Geneva, Switzerland >william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch >www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************************** > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

3 3

NCSG + ALAC => Cartagena
by William Drake Nov. 20, 2010

Nov. 20, 2010

Hi Alan and I chatted a little about whether we should try to organize an ALAC/NCSG social thing in Cartagena, but then I was traveling with spotty connectivity for a couple weeks and didn't follow up. NCSG had it's monthly meeting the other night and people expressed interest, so now I'm circling back to see whether there's interest in ALAC too? Of course, if a whole evening with dinner is too much to squeeze in, we could just do an end of the work day pre-dinner meet in the hotel bar, like 6-8pm or whatever. Please cogitate and let me know? Thanks Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: October 30, 2010 8:40:54 AM GMT+02:00 > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: NCSG + ALAC => Cartagena > > Well, there are in fact some things on which coordination would be logical, but given the recurrent difficulty of organizing something and the perhaps related shadows of all the histories involving various individuals, I tend to think the most unifying approach is to avoid unified inter-org meetings, instead gather socially, and then the various pairs and such who work well together can socialize and later build on that. In other words, I think incremental, fragmentary trust/collaboration building is the way to lay a foundation from which broader comity and coordination can eventually evolve. And anyway, people like to party… > > Sat-Sun is GNSO stuff, Tuesdays is for tribes and loud music, Wed gala, Thursday people are often moving into see the town mode. So Monday is always the main option, at least on the NC side. But if memory serves ALAC folks often do ISOC stuff then, no? > > Anyway, with enough advanced warning I can probably sell Monday or Thursday night, or failing that just a end of the day drink in the hotel bar before people head to evening activities. Last time we waited until everyone already had plans. > > So poke around and let me know? > > BD > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> Certainly worth a try. I presume you are talking something more on the social side rather than a scheduled meeting - right? >> >> I know that we have some sort of ALAC or At-Large event on Thursday evening, so that reduces the number of possible times evenings to Monday and Tuesday (haven't heard if there is the becoming standard unbearably-loud-music-night this time). >> >> Alan >> >> At 29/10/2010 08:58 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> Shall we try it again? It would seem particularly apt now that there's been various productive collaborations and some of the frictions are further in the past etc… >>> >>> BD *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************

2 1

Domain Tasting Declared Dead
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 20, 2010

Nov. 20, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19nov10-en.htm Too bad the ALAC did not get credit for initiating this example that "illustrates the success of ICANN's consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process". Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] ICANN staff repudiates community call for change on Morality & Public Order
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

Indeed Michael, I'm certainly expecting the next ICANN Meeting in Cartegena to be "very interesting indeed" and also trust that we as an At-Large Community and ALAC can be called upon to give what support and 'voice to opinion' on a number of issues I hope and trust will be raised... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 15 November 2010 23:09, Michael Palage <mike(a)palage.com> wrote: > Evan, > > I share your concerns and just wanted to point out the irony of one of the > first proposed changes in AGv5: > > This Applicant Guidebook is the implementation of Board approved > consensus policy concerning the introduction of > new gTLDs, and has been revised extensively via public > comment and consultation over a two-year period. > > > While some potential applicants continue to hold out hope that the AG will > be finalized next month, the more likely reality is that the ICANN > community > will have a front row seat to the BIGGEST game of chicken between the ICANN > Board and the GAC. Unfortunately, at this late stage ICANN staff (Kurt > Pritz) has pretty much tuned out any further changes to the AG from the > private sector. > > It is now up to the GAC to hold the line and bring about any substantive > changes. In fact I would predict some of the fireworks to be on a scale not > seen since the good old days of 1999-2000. Although no one will discuss it > publicly, this game of chicken will also tie into the IANA contract which > expires Sept 30, 2011. > > The next 6-12 months should prove very interesting. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan > Leibovitch > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 3:15 AM > To: ICANN GTLD WG list; ICANN ALAC list > Subject: [GTLD-WG] ICANN staff repudiates community call for change on > Morality & Public Order > > Hello everyone, > > In the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, ICANN staff has > essentially screwed its community. > > Despite broad agreement reached across members of the GAC, GNSO and > At-Large > on issues related to Morality and Public Order -- and a report that was > unanimously endorsed by ALAC -- ICANN staff have explicitly rejected all of > our basic requests. Literally, only the most cosmetic -- changing the name > from "Morality and Public Order" to "Limited Public Interest" -- approach > was taken. > > The sub-contracted Dispute Resolution Service Provider -- now renamed the > Dispute Resolution Administrartor -- still exists, and many, many other > changes have been rejected. Not ignored, but explicitly rejected by staff. > > Here is the redlined version of the new document: > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-dispute-resolution-procedures > -redline-12nov10-en.pdf > > And here is the staff "explanatory notes" > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-or > der-12nov10-en.pdf > > This is awful on so many levels. It asserts staff supremacy over the bottom > up process. It repudiates everything that ICANN claims to want in its > improvements of Accountability and Transparency. It asserts that on any > disagreement between staff and community, that staff should prevail. > > I am REALLY REALLY upset over this. This is an instance in which the GAC > and > ALAC were united in opposition to this completely odious piece of policy, > and staff have literally shrugged it off in the name is "risk management". > The only risk I see is the risk to ICANN policy staff making a mockery of > every principle ICANN *claims* to want to uphold. > > I am angry enough to want ALAC to go beyond merely announcing its > displeasure to the Board. I encourage everyone to real Milton Mueller's > blog > entry at > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/11/14/4679990.htmlwhi > le > contemplating what action to take. > > If we don't stand up for this, what is there to stand up for? ICANN created > At-Large to provide input on some of its most important policy and -- now > that we have provided it, in concert with other ICANN stakeholders -- its > staff have laughed it off. > > How strongly is At-Large going to fight this disgrace? What are the > candidates for Director going to propose? Where would the ATRT stand on a > process by which stakeholders can be stopped in their tracks by staff, > which > has threatened to drag out the process longer should we complain and make > us > the scapegoats of all the TLD applicants waiting for their chance? > > This is truly disgusting. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy >

3 2

ICANN staff repudiates community call for change on Morality & Public Order
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

Hello everyone, In the latest version of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, ICANN staff has essentially screwed its community. Despite broad agreement reached across members of the GAC, GNSO and At-Large on issues related to Morality and Public Order -- and a report that was unanimously endorsed by ALAC -- ICANN staff have explicitly rejected all of our basic requests. Literally, only the most cosmetic -- changing the name from "Morality and Public Order" to "Limited Public Interest" -- approach was taken. The sub-contracted Dispute Resolution Service Provider -- now renamed the Dispute Resolution Administrartor -- still exists, and many, many other changes have been rejected. Not ignored, but explicitly rejected by staff. Here is the redlined version of the new document: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-dispute-resolution-procedure… And here is the staff "explanatory notes" http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-o… This is awful on so many levels. It asserts staff supremacy over the bottom up process. It repudiates everything that ICANN claims to want in its improvements of Accountability and Transparency. It asserts that on any disagreement between staff and community, that staff should prevail. I am REALLY REALLY upset over this. This is an instance in which the GAC and ALAC were united in opposition to this completely odious piece of policy, and staff have literally shrugged it off in the name is "risk management". The only risk I see is the risk to ICANN policy staff making a mockery of every principle ICANN *claims* to want to uphold. I am angry enough to want ALAC to go beyond merely announcing its displeasure to the Board. I encourage everyone to real Milton Mueller's blog entry at http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/11/14/4679990.htmlwh… contemplating what action to take. If we don't stand up for this, what is there to stand up for? ICANN created At-Large to provide input on some of its most important policy and -- now that we have provided it, in concert with other ICANN stakeholders -- its staff have laughed it off. How strongly is At-Large going to fight this disgrace? What are the candidates for Director going to propose? Where would the ATRT stand on a process by which stakeholders can be stopped in their tracks by staff, which has threatened to drag out the process longer should we complain and make us the scapegoats of all the TLD applicants waiting for their chance? This is truly disgusting. - Evan

2 1