November 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ABSdt] ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
by Gareth Shearman Nov. 29, 2010

Nov. 29, 2010

Congratulations Sebastien and all good luck with your term as a director. Gareth On 2010-11-28, at 7:52 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > Congratulations to Sebastien and every good wish for a successful term. > > The task for the At-Large has now shifted focus. Since we are all yoked > together, we must now seek ways to make our chosen Director the very best > that he can be. > > Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > ============================= > > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> The voting for Round 2 of the election of the ICANN Board Director selected >> by the At-Large community has now been completed and the poll closed. >> >> The vote is quorate and the results show at Poll close at Sunday 28 >> November 2010 23:59 UTC: >> >> [image: logo] >> >> Poll Result >> At-Large Board Director Election 2010 - Round 2*Report date:* Monday 29 >> November 2010 00:12 UTC >> >> At-Large Board Director Election 2010 - Round 2 >> *Who should be selected as the At-Large Board Director?* >> >> *PLEASE SELECT one (1) preferred candidate.* >> >> Detailed information about the candidates is available under: >> https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Director+Candidate-Comm… >> >> >> As at Poll close: Sunday 28 November 2010 23:59 UTC >> Number of voters: 19 · Group size: 19 · Percentage voted: 100.00 >> *Candidate* *Votes* *%* Sébastien Bachollet 10 52.63 Alan Greenberg 947.37 >> >> Therefore it is my pleasure to announce that Mr. Sébastien Bachollet, has >> secured the required support from the electorate to be declared the winner, >> and will occupy seat #15 beginning at the end of the 2010 Annual General >> Meeting to be held in Cartagena, Colombia. >> >> Following this announcement of the results I will be formally writing to >> the ICANN Board Secretary Mr. John Jeffrey and informing him of the >> communities selection. >> * >> * >> >> On behalf of ALAC and the At-Large (RALOs and ALSes) who have been >> so effectively involved and contributory to this process I would also like >> to congratulate all the original SoI applicants and the final slate of >> candidates involved in this landmark process for At-Large and the ALAC, >> and sincerely thank all of them for their willingness to serve ICANN and our >> community as well as to offer our most sincere commiserations to Alan and >> our congratulations to Sébastien. >> >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) >> ALAC Chair 2007-2010 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ABSdt mailing list >> ABSdt(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/absdt >> >> > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

"Business" users (was Re: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board)
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 28, 2010

Nov. 28, 2010

Hi again, On 27 November 2010 12:37, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > *As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from > > > > the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and > at > > > > Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance > the > > > > business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and > at > > > > Large should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end > user.* > > > I must say that I'm perplexed by the nature of this question, and I take > it > > personally even though I am not a candidate for Director. > > Please don't. > I've changed the subject because my response no longer has anything to do with the election of Director. I explain this in the hope of changing some attitudes -- not about Director, but on larger issues surrounding the very nature of At-Large. Here is why I take this statement very personally. I work for a University, but I also own my own consulting firm and I am a partner in a startup venture. On travel visa applications my occupation is just listed as "businessman" or "consultant". My name has also been put forward to become one of the coming year's ALAC Officers, which certainly qualifies as an "At-Large leadership position". So I ask... Am I one of these "people from the Business Constituency" who needs to be balanced by others from a "user's constituency"? What views have I expressed in any policy work that would lead anyone to believe that I don't advocate from a user's perspective by virtue of my being a businessman? To what extent do my views need to be balanced ... and by what? I am simply making the point here is that drawing such lines in At-Large between "business" and "non-business" is needlessly divisive and impedes our ability to make progress. While Chair of NARALO I made sure that there were Conflict of Interest guidelines and that all individual users have to submit Statements of Interest. Employees, owners and agents of contracted parties may not serve any NARALO leadership position. I don't know what other regions did but that was our approach. As far as I am concerned, a business association (not primarily involved with Internet infrastructure business) has as much right to be an ALS as a non-governmental agency or ISOC chapter, and deserves as much respect for its views. That is what At-Large is all about. End-users take many forms and it it dangerous to spend too much effort segmenting them. The only business users that concerns At-Large are those that have contractual relationships with ICANN, those who want to have such relationships, and their resellers and agents. IMO we need to acknowledge that At-Large means essentially everyone who is *not* a contracted party. We're all end-users and our voices all count.The president of Citibank has to use his computer just like you or me, and is affected by spam and phishing as much as us. IMO segmenting end-users, and going as far as saying the views of some users must be "balanced" by others, is what I find bothersome. Please reconsider this approach ... not just with regard to the Board member, but towards At-Large in general. - Evan

2 1

Reply to Siva [Was: Our choice for the ICANN Board]
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 27, 2010

Nov. 27, 2010

Siva, I am pleased to note that all of the candidates, potential candidates and the rest of the community have refrained from personal attacks. Since you have chosen this very public forum to again make statements about me which are not based in fact, I have no choice but to reply. I will be brief. On Vertical Integration I did support the proposal that was originally crafted by "Affilias, GoDaddy and others". I felt that in the short term, it was the safest way to proceed until we had fully explored the possible harms that could come from integration. I note that it was also supported by Sébastien Bacholet and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. So I guess that makes us all against users and pro-business. On Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) There is an analysis of a work group survey that shows the positions of all workgroup participants who completed a survey on possible outcomes. My position and yours were quite similar and generally EXACTLY opposite to all of the registrars on the group. In the places where you and I differed, you are the one agreeing with the registrars. You can find the analysis at https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/attachm…. (short version: http://tinyurl.com/PEDNR-WG-Survey) On my ties to business I have none. I have spent virtually all of my career in the public sector involved in education and research, education and research networking and more recently the Internet Society and ICANN and the support of ICT in developing countries. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 27, 2010

Nov. 27, 2010

hi Sivas, On 27 November 2010 09:44, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: *As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from > > the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at > > Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the > > business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at > Large > > should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.* > I must say that I'm perplexed by the nature of this question, and I take it personally even though I am not a candidate for Director. My own record within At-Large is now fairly well known. I don't think that I have ever promoted an agenda that goes against user interests. Yet I am also a 50% partner in "Webwrote", a startup company making ebooks and related services. That is a business and I am most certainly intending to operate it on a for-profit basis. And since 1985 I have owned and operated my own IT consultancy. Do these activities make me a "business interest"? How has my involvement in multiple for-profit companies adversely affected my approach to ICANN policy, such as my extensive involvement in the Morality and Public Order issue, the WG creating policy on support for applicants in developing economies, etc.? I must strongly object to the inference that "business", in and of itself, is a dirty word and I take offense that merely being in business taints one's approach to ICANN's effect on end-users of the Internet. The fact is that far more adult Internet end-users run and/or work for businesses than non-profits. If At-Large did not have participants actively involved in businesses we would not reflect the reality of the end-user public for whom we claim to speak. The core business interest within ICANN that we need to confront and address is that of companies that have (and want to have) contractual relationships with ICANN who use that relationship as their business -- Registrars, registries and their resellers. Part of my own personal agenda in ALAC is to stop having ICANN operate as a trade association for these vested interests. It is an abomination that such vested interests control -- by design -- half of GNSO, ICANN's primary policy-creation vehicle. On one hand, they are in contractual arrangements with ICANN, on the other, they have substantial control over ICANN policy, therefore affecting the way the contracts with them are done. This is a core injustice that needs addressing. To me VI stands for "vested interests", and is an internal issue between them. I'm less concerned about cross-ownership than I am about the effect on end-users. which can (and should) be regulated regardless of who owns who. To that extent I supported the free-trade model, that has ICANN meddling as little as possible in that aspect so it can focus its oversight on the end-result to users. *My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working > > group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you [Alan] are > soft on the > > Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to > users. > I disagree strongly. Both Alan and Sébastien have solid credentials in advancing user interests. One could easily argue that the entire movement within ICANN to stop "domain tasting" was in large part thanks to Alan's personal initiative and his understanding of how to move that initiative through the ICANN processes. Indeed that constituted the first time ever that an At-Large initiated policy initiative was adopted by ICANN. And now PEDNR, another of Alan's policy initiatives, is following the same path. > > If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at > > Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on > broader > > issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an > impressive > > background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the > ICANN > > Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? * > "Soft" is in the eye of the beholder. IMO that approach indicates a wisdom that that we won't get everything that we want immediately in huge chunks, and will need to advance our agenda within ICANN in measured, incremental stages. The Voltaire quote, *"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" -- *the perfect being the enemy of the good -- would seem to apply here. Whoever is in the Director will at times have to be more diplomat than advocate. Remember, it's just one seat in 15, and our goal is to affect policy rather than just "take stands" that are ignored. > The Business of Business is to do business. A representative from Business > is fully entitled to argue for policies favorable to the survival and growth > of business. But a balance will prevail only if the users have their own > representative whose interests are fully aligned to the users. See above. "Business" is how I feed and shelter my family so I can do all this fun ICANN volunteerism -- and I am as much an end-user as anyone here. My business, like that of most of the world's business, has nothing to do with the creation or selling of Internet domains. The business interests that matter in an ICANN context are those that deal with ICANN vested interests -- registrars, registries, resellers and those who are waiting in line to join those constituencies. To that extent, I would happily argue that, within the ICANN context, Internet end-user interests are more aligned with those of Coca Cola than with the smallest registrar's agent. How many relationships does Alan have with existing registries, registrars, or TLD applicants? None that I'm aware of. *THAT* is perhaps more reasonable yardstick than simply referring to "business" as something bad -- or against user interests -- in and of itself. - Evan

1 0

Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from Dec 2010 to ICANN AGM 2011
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 27, 2010

Nov. 27, 2010

Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from Dec 2010 to ICANN AGM 2011 The continuing* Liaison positions, and those currently serving in the role (until the ICANN AGM in Cartagena) is listed below; With the exception of Adam Peak (who is the next Nominating Committee Chair), the incumbent Liaisons are able to stand for reappointment. *Nominations are now called for each of the following Liaison positions:-* December 2009-2010 ALAC Liaisons - GNSO – Alan Greenberg<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/greenberg.html> - ccNSO – Rudi Vansnick<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/vansnick.html> - SSAC – Patrick Vande Walle<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/vande-walle.html> - IDN Policy – James Seng<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/seng.htm> - GNSO-NCSG – Adam Peak<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/peake.html> *Board Liaison – Vanda Scartezini<http://www.icann.org/en/biog/scartezini.htm> *NOTE*:*This role terminates with the seating of the At-Large Director selected Board Member for seat #15 on the ICANN Board, at the 2010 AGM. * * * *Your attention is also drawn to the relevant sections of the ALAC Rules of Procedure (ROP 4-6) inserted below in relation to the criteria required and other matters relating to appointment made by the ALAC.* *ALAC Liaison Election Schedule November - December 2010* *26 November 2010 Election Call (sent to lists.)* *6 December 2010 Deadline for Liaison Nominations (to be sent to lists.)* *9 December 2010 Chair to post to the public ALAC list an “election summary” message (sent to lists.)* *9 December 2010 Nominations are discussed* *10 December 2010 Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination (sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of th At-Large Wiki.)* *13-17 December 2010 Election of ALAC **Liaisons (if required => where only one nomination is received for any Liaison position the nominee will be confirmed in that role on December 10th)* *17 December 2010 Election Results announced and any unconfirmed Liaisons **begin in their roles* *Excerpts from the ALAC Rules of Procedure (ROP) relating to Liaisons of the ALAC * RULE 4 - ELECTION OF LIAISONS 4.1 Liaisons to ICANN's Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations and Constituencies can be established by approval of the Committee; in that case, they will follow the rules established for the appointment and functioning of the GNSO Liaison *4.2 **Refers to* *The Board Liaison*, *and is therefore not relevant here, and will be redacted from the ALAC ROP after the 2010 AGM* 4.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 4.4 All liaisons serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. 4.5 Liaisons shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 4.6 They shall normally be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; 4.7 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the At‐Large Community by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 4.8 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as an ALAC representative, to put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. RULE 5 - QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR LIAISONS 5.1 There is no requirement for a Liaison to be a member of the At‐Large Advisory *Committee;*** 5.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 5.3 A person may not serve two different liaison positions at the same time in; 5.4 All liaisons can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11; 5.5 All liaisons have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in Rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. *The mission and responsibilities of each Liaison of the ALAC are:* 5.6 To participate diligently in the meetings and activities of the body he/she is liaison to; 5.7 To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to such body; 5.8 To report to the ALAC the current and upcoming activities of the body he/she is liaison to, as far as this is possible under the timing and confidentiality constraints of such *body;* ** ** * 5.9 When this is possible under such constraints, ask to the ALAC for advance instructions on matters that are going to be discussed by such body. * RULE 6 - PRIVILEGES OF LIAISONS 6.1 All liaisons have the same rights of access to information, mailing lists and documents *as the ordinary ALAC members.* * ****NOTE: there is no assured travel finding for ALAC Liaisons to attend ICANN Meetings unless they are serving ALAC members so assurances that they can still perform their role will be required**.* * * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RES: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board
by carlos dionisio aguirre Nov. 26, 2010

Nov. 26, 2010

Agree with Vanda in almost evErything. I consider its words were very objective. However I particularly support a different candidate. Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:57:18 To: <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] RES: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board All candidates are friends and each one has peculiar positive and negative points in their profiles. However to be friend is not enough for support one or another candidate to this position which took so huge effort and time to ALAC to get it. Have the best we can candidate is really an obligation of this group . I don?t vote what I really believe is not fair. I have only the task but no rights? We don?t have liaisons anymore, so let it go, but I don?t agree liaisons shall have no right no vote inside their ACs. They should be full members. Back to election , ALAC members need to go deeply as how candidates profile will be adequate or not for the board - which behavior is expected for a board member? Controlled person, lack of impulsiveness, balance and analytical person, hard worker, strategic, independent, with lot?s of time to dedicate to the task., no conflict of interest meaning, no contract with internet industry, deep knowledge of the ICANN issues, good involvement with several regions... and with all points taking into account I must support Carlton choice. I don?t vote, but I believe I have right to express my opinion openly, and here it is. Good vote to all for the benefit of LAC and At Large users. All the best Vanda Scartezini ALAC LAST LIAISON TO THE BOARD -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A Enviada em: sexta-feira, 26 de novembro de 2010 12:58 Para: ALAC; At-Large Worldwide Assunto: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW, these are my views.....and I continue to hold them. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of SAMUELS,Carlton A Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM To: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board We support Alan Greenberg. That said, we shall not support a directed LACRALO vote. It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed director to be. We would have missed the critical points totally if you were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself that what we call the At-Large is very diverse. So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board. [I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut her down!]. I am drawn to dissenters. But in this case user interests is way too important just to dissent; having influence is much better. We must encourage our representative to have influence. And then to use that influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer interests that could arise at Board level. ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the "Interests". If you're going to have influence from a position of one, we believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests. This is the process of triangulation. It is the strategic model most utilized to succeed in the majority group when you are a minority. This is what we know, almost as birthright. We do not always agree with Alan. But to say he doesn't understand user or consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation and I was for 'free trade'. In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on the user side than I was on this issue. And while I deeply respect his views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment. You do not penalize until and unless you have a case. Maybe the Board came to their conclusion by another meandering route. But in the end, they voted my perspective. Goes to show. Carlton Samuels _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.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

1 0

FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board
by SAMUELS,Carlton A Nov. 26, 2010

Nov. 26, 2010

I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW, these are my views.....and I continue to hold them. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of SAMUELS,Carlton A Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM To: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board We support Alan Greenberg. That said, we shall not support a directed LACRALO vote. It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed director to be. We would have missed the critical points totally if you were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself that what we call the At-Large is very diverse. So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board. [I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut her down!]. I am drawn to dissenters. But in this case user interests is way too important just to dissent; having influence is much better. We must encourage our representative to have influence. And then to use that influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer interests that could arise at Board level. ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the "Interests". If you're going to have influence from a position of one, we believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests. This is the process of triangulation. It is the strategic model most utilized to succeed in the majority group when you are a minority. This is what we know, almost as birthright. We do not always agree with Alan. But to say he doesn't understand user or consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation and I was for 'free trade'. In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on the user side than I was on this issue. And while I deeply respect his views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment. You do not penalize until and unless you have a case. Maybe the Board came to their conclusion by another meandering route. But in the end, they voted my perspective. Goes to show. Carlton Samuels _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

3 2

FW: [At-Large] ALAC response to the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook
by Heidi Ullrich Nov. 25, 2010

Nov. 25, 2010

Dear All, Please see below a note from Evan Leibovitch regarding the latest version of the draft ALAC statement on the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook (available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+F…) Please review and make your comments by Tuesday, 30 November either by e-mail or by using the comment function on the wiki page. Kind regards, Heidi -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:58 PM To: ICANN GTLD WG list; ICANN At-Large list Subject: [At-Large] ALAC response to the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook Hello all. I've just finished incorporating the input received in today's drafting call into the ALAC statement on the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+F… Please review and comment. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Cartagena Public Forum ; input requested
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 25, 2010

Nov. 25, 2010

Peter, Thank you for this opportunity for community based input into the topic choices and structure of the Public Forum on Thursday in Cartagena. In a piece of unfortunate timing your email arrived shortly after our monthly ALAC and the following ExCom meeting, but I have already asked the ExCom to provide some prompt feedback and with this reply the ALAC Working list (which also has our Regional Leadership and Liaisons subscribed are also being requested for feedback and ideas as soon as possible... To this end if the ALAC List can discuss ON our list alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org , say before 2355 UTC on Friday 26th if at all possible, that would be appreciated, and I will pass on any outcomes to the Board Chairman. >From my perspective though Peter what responses I have had back from the ExCom does indicate that new gTLD's is still a matter the community desires much interaction on... Yes we see the Agenda time being allocated elsewhere in the meeting for this and related matters Recommendation 6 for example, but I do wonder if some community members are unable to attend those sessions OR if there are developments out of our meeting at these sessions or in our community and cross community discussions earlier in the week it may still be very worthwhile to consider time in the Public forum for this topic and it's various component parts... There might also be interests developing from community discussions and interactions at Cartagena on having the ATRT's work (or matters arising from it) as a topic as well. I will attempt to provide the time-frame information you requested with any iout from our community on proposed topics, but on the matters I mentioned above those affected by the outcomes is our whole ICANN community... More when I have it then, Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 November 2010 11:07, Peter Dengate Thrush < peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear Chairs, > I'd be grateful for some comment on topics your organisations might like to > have included on the agenda of the Public Forum for Cartagena. > It would be helpful if you indicate the context of any proposed topics, > including who is affected by the outcomes, and the timeframe in which > decisions might have to be made. > > Note that new gTLD topics are provided for already by separate sessions. > > Many thanks - I look forward to seeing you in Colombia. > > regards > > > Peter Dengate Thrush > Chairman of the Board of Directors, > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > +64 4 4998959 (DDI) > +64 21499888 (mobile) > +64 4 4710672 (fax) > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] FYI: Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 25, 2010

Nov. 25, 2010

OK tis a day for error correction I guess I have had it pointed out to me that of course the ICANN Letter to the GAC is NOT a reply to the latest letter from GAC at all, but actually to their earlier ones... and there I was thinking that it was a very prompt reply => the dates had me confused *sigh* Sorry to have mislead any one... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 November 2010 10:15, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Obviously still tired form last few days typo in my note below changes > the context completely Sorry... > > SHOULD READ => "Excellent letter *from *the GAC in my view at least, re > the ICANN response, the funny (not) thing is of course the GAC, ALAC and > GNSO in their co-creation of the CWG aimed to offer by the action of the > cross community activity and any agreements they might come up with was to > offer to the Board exactly what PDT is asking for *sigh* and we all know > how well that was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)... > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > > On 25 November 2010 09:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> Excellent letter for the GAC in my view at least, re the ICANN response, >> the funny (not) thing is of course the GAC, ALAC and GNSO in their >> co-creation of the CWG aimed to offer by the action of the cross community >> activity and any agreements they might come up with was to offer to the >> Board exactly what PDT is asking for *sigh* and we all know how well that >> was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)... >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> (CLO) >> >> >> >> >> On 25 November 2010 07:47, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)mindsandmachines.com> >>> Date: 24 November 2010 14:57 >>> Subject: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: >>> morality >>> issues >>> To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo(a)icann.org> >>> >>> >>> For those not yet aware, there has been an exchange of letters between >>> GAC >>> and ICANN concerning the subject matter of this working group. >>> >>> The GAC letter of Nov 22 ( >>> >>> http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-22nov10-en.pdf >>> ) >>> suggests that there be "prior review" of applications, in order to give >>> applicants an "early warning" that their TLDs might raise sensitivities. >>> It >>> does not say who should conduct these reviews, what the standards of >>> review >>> are, whether there would be any appeal, whether the determination of the >>> reviewers was final, etc. etc. The GAC letter suggests that this is >>> important in view of the principle of universal resolvability, noting >>> that >>> to date "there do not appear to be controversial top level domains that >>> have >>> resulted in significant or sustained blocking by countries." The letter >>> does not explain why this is different than blocking of second-level >>> domains >>> by countries, which is a widespread practice. >>> >>> The ICANN letter in response ( >>> >>> http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf >>> ), >>> sent the next day, is a compendium of how ICANN has addressed or is >>> addressing outstanding issues. The issues concerning morality and public >>> order are saved for the end of the letter (pages 9 and 10), and basically >>> say to the GAC, we appreciate your input, but you need to suggest a way >>> forward rather than just say you're unhappy with the outcome. Here's a >>> couple of quotes from PDT: >>> >>> "Various competing interests are involved, for example the rights of >>> freedom >>> of expression versus sensitivities associated with terms of national, >>> cultural, geographic and religious significance. While freedom of >>> expression >>> is not absolute, those claiming to be offended on national, cultural, >>> geographic or religious grounds do not have an automatic veto over >>> gTLDs." >>> >>> "I understand that some GAC members have expressed dissatisfaction with >>> this >>> process as it was first described in version 2 of the Guidebook. The >>> treatment of this issue in the new gTLD context, was the result of a >>> well-studied and documented process which involved consultations with >>> internationally recognized experts in this area. Advice containing >>> thoughtful proposals for amending the treatment of this issue that >>> maintains >>> the integrity of the policy recommendation would be welcomed. The >>> expression of dissatisfaction without a substantive proposal, does not >>> give >>> the Board or staff a toehold for considering alternative solutions. >>> While >>> the report of the recently convened working group still does not >>> constitute >>> a policy statement as conceived in the ICANN bylaws, ICANN staff and >>> Board >>> are working to collaborate with the community to adopt many of the >>> recommendations." >>> >>> Antony >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >

1 0