March 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

GNSO Motion on AC/SO WG to support new gTLD bids requiring assistance
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Following is the motion to be discussed in tomorrow's gTLD. The only change from the version I previously sent out is the last clause in the first "resolved" statement: keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs This statement is equivalent to one in the Board resolution. It is unclear why it was added, but it does not change the intent. PLEASE NOTE that the timing in the motion says that the group should start working within 28 days and is expected to deliver a report by Brussels (ie, several weeks before). If we are to meet these constraints, we will really need to approve the WG PRIOR to out 27 April meeting. Alan ==================================================== MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT: Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies, Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation; Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed; Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's. Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RAA process
by Heidi Ullrich March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

I’m very happy to assist in organizing an At-Large/ALAC-Registrars meeting in Brussels. With only 43 working days until the 38th ICANN meeting begins, it would be useful to begin the planning as soon as possible. Kind regards, Heidi From: Tim Cole Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:11 PM To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com; masonc(a)snapnames.com; Heidi Ullrich Cc: met(a)msk.com; David Olive; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: RAA process I'm sure Heidi and I can make that happen, Cheryl. Tim Tim Cole Chief Registrar Liaison ICANN _ Written on my Blackberry - please excuse any typos. ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> To: Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com>; Heidi Ullrich Cc: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com>; David Olive; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sun Mar 28 13:51:40 2010 Subject: Re: RAA process Excellent Mason (always happy to hear affirmation of these things) => and to that end as we have not had a 'formal' ALAC - At-Large and Registrars meeting/get together for a few ICANN meetings lately (since our tiny beginning back at the Delhi meeting) shall we both ensure that Tim and Heidi have one in our Meeting Agenda's for Brussels? I'll get Heidi to follow up directly with you and Tim... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 29 March 2010 05:38, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com<mailto:masonc@snapnames.com>> wrote: Cheryl, registrars are always willing to discuss issues of concern with the ALAC or any other group. The point of my initial e-mail simply is to ensure all understand that negotiations of any future RAA amendments will be solely between the entities that are party to the contract. ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:23 PM To: Mason Cole Cc: Metalitz, Steven; david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: RAA process SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how I read your note was apparently unfounded... As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once decided). To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com<mailto:masonc@snapnames.com>> wrote: Steve and Cheryl – I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for some months now, already is being informed by end-user and consumer input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of the community’s points of view. That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, just as was the case in the last round of negotiations. Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as was the process in the last round. I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that point in the subteam meeting in Seoul. Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so. I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused. Regards, Mason ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: Mason Cole; david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; gnso-raa-b(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-raa-b@icann.org>; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our attention) from Mason, Steve... Which unsurprisingly has my full support... What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>should any form of Industry best practice model(s) or Industry Codes developed (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen without complete stakeholder involvement? In other words in the absence of end user and consumer input! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are leaders in this area. Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of course I would be glad to stand corrected. While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. Steve Metalitz ________________________________ From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com<mailto:masonc@snapnames.com>] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole Subject: RAA process Steve – I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in negotiations. Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. Regards, Mason

1 0

Some information on the rogue root server instance in China
by Patrick Vande Walle March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

http://www.betanews.com/article/With-three-months-to-go-to-DNSSEC-someones-… To summarize: last week, an anycast instance of the I root server stated exhibiting a strange behaviour. Some replies appeared to be spoofed. Autonomica, the Swedish company managing the I root, claims their anycast instance in China is identical to the other instances they have around the world. In other words, they serve the same root zone, not something that would be "adapted" to the Chinese Internet regulations. CNNIC, on their side, say they are just supplying the power and the bandwidth. There is a lively discussion on the origin of this malfunction on the SSAC list. Opinions differ, but the research is going on. However, some raised the issue of the accountability of root server operators, and the fact that the absence of a contractual framework (minus L-root) between them and ICANN means that no-one is able to formally complain and seek redress. It is all a question of good faith and willingness on the side of the rootops. I think indeed that ICANN will have to think about a contractual framework with the root zone operators in the future, along the lines of the registry agreements. After all, the Internet users deserve the same level of service from the root that they get from gTLD operators. I am not saying that the rootops have done a bad job. Quite the contrary. They have done an outstanding volunteer job. However, there should be a mechanism to replace a root operator that fails for whatever reason. -- Patrick Vande Walle Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu

4 4

Re: [ALAC] RAA process
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

Excellent Mason (always happy to hear affirmation of these things) => and to that end as we have not had a 'formal' ALAC - At-Large and Registrars meeting/get together for a few ICANN meetings lately (since our tiny beginning back at the Delhi meeting) shall we both ensure that Tim and Heidi have one in our Meeting Agenda's for Brussels? I'll get Heidi to follow up directly with you and Tim... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 29 March 2010 05:38, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com> wrote: > Cheryl, registrars are always willing to discuss issues of concern with > the ALAC or any other group. The point of my initial e-mail simply is to > ensure all understand that negotiations of any future RAA amendments will be > solely between the entities that are party to the contract. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 4:23 PM > *To:* Mason Cole > *Cc:* Metalitz, Steven; david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; > Tim Cole; ALAC Working List > *Subject:* Re: RAA process > > > > SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how > I read your note was apparently unfounded... > > > > As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC > RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was > mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any > future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and > that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and > what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once > decided). > > > > To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the > Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com> wrote: > > Steve and Cheryl – > > > > I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion > that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that > obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for > some months now, *already is* being informed by end-user and consumer > input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of > the community’s points of view. > > > > That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a > private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts > with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up > organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential > changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform > staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, > just as was the case in the last round of negotiations. > > > > Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to > insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the > registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the > community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, > incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars > agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and > consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, > doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that > negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as > was the process in the last round. > > I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on > the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. > There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for > an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that > point in the subteam meeting in Seoul. > > Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with > staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA > is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between > contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or > at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate > that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so. > > I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be > constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused. > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* Mason Cole; david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim > Cole; gnso-raa-b(a)icann.org; ALAC Working List > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process > > > > Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our > attention) from Mason, Steve... > > > > Which unsurprisingly has my full support... > > > > What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should > any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed > (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is > mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples > views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different > GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the > gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and > deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without > complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end > user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the > successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and > Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are > leaders in this area. > > > > Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES > need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. > > > > Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for > a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate > to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). > > > > Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars > participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no > one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to > the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail > archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of > course I would be glad to stand corrected. > > > > While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more > comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- > and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" > or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the > registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the > subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the > subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole > *Subject:* RAA process > > Steve – > > > > I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The > registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments > to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this > process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. > > > > However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. > Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including > “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, > NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” > > > > I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are > only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and > those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that > cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have > stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that > there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in > negotiations. > > > > Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed > in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional > possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and > expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. > > > > Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up > in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

Thanks Frank... Now the work begins! From my POV I think ALAC should set up a Wikispace/Commons where any one can raise issues or opinions on this important matter and to encourage discussion and debate on what is raised there... In this way I can refer to current input from our community and use that to develop whatever outreach planning the Review Team will be no doubt discussing early on its processes. So I'll discuss this at the next ExCom meeting and let these lists know what and when things will be set up... Another thought is (in case anyone wished to forward matters via email for my attention) is to set up an @at-large-lists address for this purpose... What do you think any views?? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 08:31, Franck Martin <franck.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Congratulations! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > To: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large > Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Saturday, 27 March, 2010 10:28:57 AM > Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the > Accountability and Transparency Review Team > > Received overnight (well for me overnight it's my Sat morning here in the > antipodeas) from Alice Jansen... The following informs me that I have been > retained as part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: RT Candidatures <rtcandidatures(a)icann.org> > Date: 27 March 2010 01:04 > Subject: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability > and > Transparency Review Team > To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com > > > Dear Mrs. Langdon-Orr, > > > > We are contacting you on behalf of Mr. Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC, > and > Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors (the > Selectors of the first Review Team), and we would like to update you on > your > application status for a position on the Accountability and Transparency > review team. > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

3 2

Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Received overnight (well for me overnight it's my Sat morning here in the antipodeas) from Alice Jansen... The following informs me that I have been retained as part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: RT Candidatures <rtcandidatures(a)icann.org> Date: 27 March 2010 01:04 Subject: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com Dear Mrs. Langdon-Orr, We are contacting you on behalf of Mr. Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC, and Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors (the Selectors of the first Review Team), and we would like to update you on your application status for a position on the Accountability and Transparency review team. First of all, we would like to thank you for your interest in the ICANN review process; your skills, professional experience and true interest in the review were highly appreciated by the Selectors. After careful review of your application, the Selectors are pleased to inform you that you have been retained for a position on the Review Team, and would like to congratulate you on your new role. The first step of the review process will be to schedule a first Review Team conference call; please note that a poll will be sent to you very shortly so as to determine a timeslot which is convenient to all members. Agenda and details of the call will then follow. Meanwhile, we thank you again for your availability to participate in this key process. Best regards Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

2 1

New gTLD Applicant Support WG
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Please find attached the draft GNSO resolution to create (from their perspective) the new WG as requested by the 12 March Board Resolution 20 - <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20. If anyone has thoughts on changes that are necessary for this resolution, please pass them on to me as soon as possible. The GNSO meeting on Thursday, 01 April. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RAA process
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 26, 2010

March 26, 2010

SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how I read your note was apparently unfounded... As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once decided). To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com> wrote: > Steve and Cheryl – > > > > I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion > that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that > obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for > some months now, *already is* being informed by end-user and consumer > input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of > the community’s points of view. > > > > That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a > private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts > with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up > organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential > changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform > staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, > just as was the case in the last round of negotiations. > > > > Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to > insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the > registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the > community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, > incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars > agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and > consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, > doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that > negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as > was the process in the last round. > > I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on > the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. > There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for > an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that > point in the subteam meeting in Seoul. > > Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with > staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA > is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between > contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or > at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate > that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so. > > I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be > constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused. > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* Mason Cole; david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim > Cole; gnso-raa-b(a)icann.org; ALAC Working List > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process > > > > Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our > attention) from Mason, Steve... > > > > Which unsurprisingly has my full support... > > > > What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should > any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed > (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is > mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples > views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different > GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the > gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and > deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without > complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end > user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the > successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and > Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are > leaders in this area. > > > > Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES > need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. > > > > Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for > a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate > to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). > > > > Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars > participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no > one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to > the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail > archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of > course I would be glad to stand corrected. > > > > While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more > comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- > and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" > or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the > registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the > subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the > subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole > *Subject:* RAA process > > Steve – > > > > I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The > registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments > to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this > process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. > > > > However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. > Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including > “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, > NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” > > > > I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are > only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and > those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that > cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have > stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that > there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in > negotiations. > > > > Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed > in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional > possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and > expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. > > > > Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up > in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 26, 2010

March 26, 2010

Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our attention) from Mason, Steve... Which unsurprisingly has my full support... What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are leaders in this area. Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com> wrote: > > Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate > to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). > > Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars > participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no > one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to > the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail > archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of > course I would be glad to stand corrected. > > While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more > comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- > and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" > or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the > registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the > subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the > subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole > *Subject:* RAA process > > Steve – > > > > I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The > registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments > to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this > process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. > > > > However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. > Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including > “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, > NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” > > > > I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are > only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and > those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that > cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have > stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that > there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in > negotiations. > > > > Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed > in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional > possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and > expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. > > > > Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up > in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement in Support of Consumer Constituency
by Adam Peake March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

I think I remember *not* supporting this statement, offering a revision, and there being no further substantive discussion on the text. Where/when was the vote called? I do not think we followed procedure for this to be adopted as a form statement of the ALAC. Thanks, Adam >Dear Diane, > >The At-Large staff has the honour to transmit to >you the ALAC Statement in Support of Consumer >Constituency on behalf of the At-Large Advisory >Committee. > >The Statement was drafted by Beau Brendler, >member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) >from North America and published on the ALAC >mailing list for community review on January >28th, 2010 (see >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2010/… >) > >The first revision of the Statement (the >attached document) is based on comments received >on the first draft and was sent to the ALAC >internal mailing list by Beau on February 11th, >2010. No additional comments were received on >this document. > >The present Statement constitutes the official >ALAC input to the public consultation on New >Consumers Constituency Petition and Charter and >was transmitted to the public consultation >process on February 13th. > >As this is a formal Statement of an Advisory >Committee to the Board, we provide it hereby to >the Secretary of ICANN for distribution to >the Board with our compliments. The ALAC >welcomes any comments the Board may wish to make >by reply. > >-- >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella >Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström >ICANN At-Large Staff > >email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name= > > "At-Large_ALAC_ST_Statement_0110_4_rev1_ALAC_Statement_in_support_consumer_constituency-EN.pdf" >Content-Description: >At-Large_ALAC_ST_Statement_0110_4_rev1_ALAC_Statement_in_support_consumer_constituency-EN.pdf >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename= > > "At-Large_ALAC_ST_Statement_0110_4_rev1_ALAC_Statement_in_support_consumer_constituency-EN.pdf"; > size=107348; creation-date="Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:38:11 GMT"; > modification-date="Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:38:11 GMT" > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:At-Large_ALAC_ST_Sta#46BC31.pdf (PDF /«IC») >(0046BC31) >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0