May 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews
by Alan Greenberg May 29, 2010

May 29, 2010

As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews. It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it. Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications. For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At-Large. The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse. In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know. If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday. Alan

4 4

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews
by Alan Greenberg May 29, 2010

May 29, 2010

Worth a lot as the announcement has not yet gone out! Alan At 29/05/2010 12:58 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >I'm just getting a chance to review the statement. FWIW, I fully support it. > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:43 PM >To: ALAC Working List >Subject: [ALAC] ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews > >As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the >document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of >Commitments Reviews. > >It consists of three parts: >- Number of seats >- Time it will take us to do the endorsements >- Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement > >The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by >me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not >have a problem making it. > >Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to >Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will >do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). >However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. >The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed >that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to >allow sufficient time to receive applications. > >For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the >pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting >the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are >asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to >participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can >properly represent At-Large. > >The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, >where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. >Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the >reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of >those who we endorse. > >In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about >asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two >additional requirements. >- An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit >substantial time to the review >- A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone >else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive >answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. >But it certainly is important to know. > >If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to >catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday. > >Alan

1 0

GNSO Work Prioritization Effort
by Alan Greenberg May 25, 2010

May 25, 2010

As you will recall, the GNSO has decided to assess the priority of its various projects, as a step in deciding how to manage its overall workload. As the ALAC Liaison, I will take part in this process and we need to decide exactly how my submission should be formulated. There are 15 projects to be evaluated. Details on these projects can be found at <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf. My submission is due on June 7, and there will be a further evaluation exercise carried out face-to-face in Brussels. I hope we will have time for a brief discussion on this at the ALAC meeting. Alan

2 2

Key staff members leaving ICANN
by Patrick Vande Walle May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

FYI http://www.stephanevangelder.com/archives/325-Key-staff-members-leaving-ICA… We recently heard from Doug Brent [1], ICANN's COO, that he will be leaving after 4 years with the body responsible for coordinating Internet domain names. Having worked with Doug in the course of my duties as a member of ICANN's GNSO Council and more recently as Vice Chair of that Council, I can say that he will be missed. Doug was as helpful as he was professional, and always managed to make you feel like no problem was insurmountable. Quite a feat in the ICANN environment. I hear that other members of staff may be leaving soon. Some, it appears, have already left. VP, Global and Strategic Partnerships Theresa Swinehart for example, who was an ICANN veteran having joined the organisation way back in 2001. I also worked with Theresa, when she was on then-VP Paul Levins' team. I have not seen an official announcement from ICANN on Theresa's departure, which seems odd, but she is no longer shown on the staff list [2]. Another major staff member about to leave, so I am told, is IANA boss David Conrad. Although I do not know David personally, I have heard several people credit him for a marked improvement in the way IANA has performed over the last few years. IANA is a key element of ICANN's job as steward of the Internet's naming system as it allows new domains to be added to the Internet root. For instance, in order for several new non-Latin script Internet domains to become active recently [3], they had to be "delegated" by IANA. So all this leaves me with one question. What's going on at ICANN at the moment for some many key staff members to be leaving? I've also heard a rumour that Nick Ashton-Hart, Senior Director Participation and Engagement, may soon be on his way… Links: ------ [1] http://blog.icann.org/2010/04/a-change-and-some-reflections/ [2] http://www.icann.org/en/general/staff.html [3] http://www.stephanevangelder.com/archives/324-Non-Latin-.RF-now-in-the-root…

2 1

Comment on travel guidelines
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2010

May 14, 2010

Unfortunately, we missed the formal comment period on travel guidelines, but I would suggest that it is still appropriate for us to submit a comment. I understand that we will be starting a number of votes on Friday, and if there is not objection, we can vote on it at this time. In general, there was not a lot of change in the guidelines for this meeting. Although we are currently funding RALO leadership to attend ICANN meetings (2 per region per meeting), the guidelines allow the funding to be used for regional meetings instead. There has been no extension of the funding to explicitly address regional meetings or to allow ALS representatives to attend ICANN meetings. I believe that this is in line with our discussions to request such funding through the budget process, linking such participation to specific At-Large goals and not simply as "travel support". In the specific Brussels travel guidelines, the most apparent change is that departures can now be delayed to allow participants to attend the open Board meeting. This was a privilege extended to other groups in some past meetings, but not to the ALAC. This time, it was across-the-board. A related change was that ever since "Constituency Travel" took over from Stacy Hoffberg, we had to ask for "exceptions" to cover what was already the norm before, specifically to accommodate various arrival and departure schedules based on ICANN meetings. This time, the schedule allowed for such things as my attending GNSO meetings on Saturday, or the ExCom meeting on Friday afternoon. The arrival rules are still not sufficiently flexible to accommodate late night arrivals. The formal rules for selecting itineraries are still as rigid as before, but there is some evidence that they are being handled in a somewhat more flexible manner. Due to the short time-frame, please comment as soon as possible. Alan ------------------- Draft ALAC Statement on ICANN Volunteer Travel Support Guidelines The ALAC appreciates ICANN's continued funding of ALAC and RALO leadership travel to ICANN meetings, as well as the discretion to use such funding for other regional meetings. We still believe that full engagement of RALOs and ALS members requires additional funding for regional meetings. Such engagement is one of the key issues raised in the recent review of the ALAC. As such, we will be addressing this need through the normal ICANN planning and budget process. Regarding the specific guidelines for the Brussels ICANN meeting, we are pleased that At-Large attendees are now allowed to attend the full ICANN meeting and are no longer required to leave before the meeting ends. We look forward to similar flexibility related to arrivals, where some of our attendees are not given the "luxury" of a reasonable amount of sleep prior to the start of meetings. We also look forward to refining the air travel reservation process to fully address the needs of both ICANN and attendees. Full and open dialogue with ICANN over travel issues has provided a number of improvements, and we hope that continued dialogue will lead to further benefits allowing At-Large to better carry out its mandate of representing the needs of Internet users within the ICANN multi-stakeholder processes.

4 4

ALAC Improvements Implementation Project Plan for SIC/BGC meeting
by At Large Staff May 13, 2010

May 13, 2010

Dear Diane, The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you the attached ALAC Improvements Implementation Project Plan on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). The ALAC would appreciate this document being considered by the Structural Improvements Committee and the Board Governance Committee at their 20th May meeting in Dublin and welcomes any comments they may have. This Project Plan has been endorsed by the full ALAC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Comment on travel guidelines
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2010

May 13, 2010

Evan, I whole-heartedly support both of your points, but I don't think that either are responsive to the question on the table (Community Travel Support Guidelines). On the second point, given the messages that resulted from my last posting about Cartagena, I suspect that we would have very diverse opinions within the ALAC and At-Large on that issue. However, I think that we need to further discuss both issues. The issue of staff travel costs is one that we may want Cheryl to raise on the A&T review team. And regarding meeting locations, We will likely be seeing something from the Board Public Participation Committee in the near future, and it serve us well if we had discussed this issee ahead of time, to at least delineate our various positions. Alan At 13/05/2010 11:50 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Good work Alan, I like Adam's additions as well, > >Is there any room or context to talk about staff travel policy for >attending regional meetings? These are the ones that are done for >only parts of the community (registrars, mostly) but are closed to >others. If ICANN is concerned about the costs of flinging people >around the world, then shouldn't its own staff be part of the equation? > >Also: it seems that we need to remind ICANN that its choice of >meeting cities will definitely have an effect on travel expenses. >The choice of Cartahena may be useful for other reasons but it will >be a nightmare from a POV of booking travel. This seems a step >backwards from the original inclination to prefer significant travel hubs. > >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Comment on travel guidelines
by Evan Leibovitch May 13, 2010

May 13, 2010

Good work Alan, I like Adam's additions as well, Is there any room or context to talk about staff travel policy for attending regional meetings? These are the ones that are done for only parts of the community (registrars, mostly) but are closed to others. If ICANN is concerned about the costs of flinging people around the world, then shouldn't its own staff be part of the equation? Also: it seems that we need to remind ICANN that its choice of meeting cities will definitely have an effect on travel expenses. The choice of Cartahena may be useful for other reasons but it will be a nightmare from a POV of booking travel. This seems a step backwards from the original inclination to prefer significant travel hubs. - Evan

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO Prioritization Process Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2010

May 13, 2010

At the last ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft a statement for endorsement by the ALAC during the ongoing Public Comment period on the "New GNSO Council Work Prioritization Process Recommendations" - http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#wp. In summary, the recommendations describe in detail the process to be used by the GNSO to prioritize its work. This document does not discuss how the results of this process will be used in the policy development management process - that is the next thing to consider. The recommendations discuss how GNSO Council "members" will participate in the prioritization effort. The ALAC Liaison is not formally a Council "member", but the Bylaws call for the Liaison to be granted all privileges of members, with the explicit exception of making and seconding motions, and voting. So my assumption was that the Liaison *would* participate. I verified this with the current chairs of the GNSO Council and the Work Team that drafted the recommendations. The draft statement can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?gnso_prioritization_recommendat…. The comment period ends on Sunday, May 16. Subject to the agreement of the ALAC Chair, and I would suggest that we discuss this on the list, and assuming there is general agreement with the statement, that it (or a modification of it) be put to a 5-day vote beginning on Monday, May 10. This will allow the vote to end and the statement posted to the formal ICANN Public Comments no later than Friday, May 14. We could have a longer vote, or have it end on the weekend, but that would mean that our staff would have to handle this during the weekend. Given that I do not expect that it will be a controversial issue, I see no reason to do this. Comments on the statement please! Alan PS I also am working on a second statement on the GNSO Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated Recommendations. You should have that shortly.

3 2

ACTION: Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Dear All, As requested by Sebastien Bachollet, the Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation is available for comment on the wiki page listed below. Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?draft_alac_statement_on_reconsider… You may add your comments directly to the page by clicking the orange comment button located at the top and bottom of the wiki page. Please submit your comments by Thursday, 14 May 23:59 UTC. Thank You. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Surprise on ICANN Brussels schedule page ...
by Rudi Vansnick May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

Dear colleagues, I was surprised looking at the webpage on the ICANN Brussels schedule http://brussels38.icann.org/sched-overview I do not see any announcement of ALAC meetings ... and in regards our EURALO Outreach activities this is really not very helpful as we are trying to get sponsors for this event. Can staff check why ALAC is not mentioned ? Best regards, Rudi Vansnick Internet Society Belgium vzw - president   Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN)  ALAC ccNSO liaison Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39  GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32  www.internetsociety.be

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO Prioritization Process Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

I have seen no comments on this statement. I would like to hope that this means there has been no violent objection to it. I leave it to the Chair to instruct staff to start the vote as suggested, or hold off. Alan At 05/05/2010 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO Prioritization Process >Recommendations > >At the last ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft a statement for >endorsement by the ALAC during the ongoing Public Comment period on >the "New GNSO Council Work Prioritization Process Recommendations" - >http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#wp. > >In summary, the recommendations describe in detail the process to be >used by the GNSO to prioritize its work. This document does not >discuss how the results of this process will be used in the policy >development management process - that is the next thing to consider. > >The recommendations discuss how GNSO Council "members" will >participate in the prioritization effort. The ALAC Liaison is not >formally a Council "member", but the Bylaws call for the Liaison to >be granted all privileges of members, with the explicit exception of >making and seconding motions, and voting. So my assumption was that >the Liaison *would* participate. > >I verified this with the current chairs of the GNSO Council and the >Work Team that drafted the recommendations. > >The draft statement can be found at >https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?gnso_prioritization_recommendat…. > > >The comment period ends on Sunday, May 16. Subject to the agreement >of the ALAC Chair, and I would suggest that we discuss this on the >list, and assuming there is general agreement with the statement, >that it (or a modification of it) be put to a 5-day vote beginning >on Monday, May 10. This will allow the vote to end and the statement >posted to the formal ICANN Public Comments no later than Friday, May >14. We could have a longer vote, or have it end on the weekend, but >that would mean that our staff would have to handle this during the >weekend. Given that I do not expect that it will be a controversial >issue, I see no reason to do this. > >Comments on the statement please! > >Alan > >PS I also am working on a second statement on the GNSO >Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated >Recommendations. You should have that shortly. > >

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO CCT Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

At the last ALAC meeting, I was asked to draft a statement for the endorsement of the ALAC on the New GNSO Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated Recommendations. In general, the report is worthy of supporting, although I have identified one area where I disagree with the recommendations. The report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf (not easy to find, since it is not pointed to by the Public Comment web page). The report is a rather difficult to follow and for a document discussing communications, I think that it is an example demonstrating that we need improvement. Nevertheless, it does identify a lot of areas where improvement is needed. Some of them are of specific interest to the GNSO, but many are particularly relevant to those who are trying to understand and/or influence GNSO policy discussions and to At-Large in particular. I was personally gratified to see "The GNSO Council has been very well served by the nonvoting ALAC liaison who participates actively on Council calls and in various policy working groups." and the recommendation that this be used as a model for engagement of other ICANN groups. My one significant concern is with a recommendation concerning Working Group Charters. The recommendation reads: >5.8 Lack of Known Desired Outcomes or Ultimate Objectives The CCT >believes that the GNSO's work and communications would be much more >efficient and easy to handle by all participants if proper context >is established, including a clear explanation of the outcome that >the Council hopes for in convening the Working Group or work >activity. The CCT recommends that Working Group charters be drafted >with careful attention to the issues or questions that should be >considered and the outcomes desired. The CCT acknowledges that the >Working Group Work Team is developing a set of guidelines that will >recommend more precision in the drafting of charter documents and it >fully endorses this effort. Although WG charters must carefully identify the scope of the problems or issue, I strongly object to the concept of the GNSO specifying the outcomes of a WG and in particular a PDP WG. The WG must be free to craft outcomes that really will address the issue, and not be constrained by the position of the GNSO prior to the start. The draft statement can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?gnso_cct_recommendations. The comment period ends on May 16. Our original intent was to have the is statement ready for discussion much earlier and to vote on it prior to the comment period ending. Due to the lateness of the draft, I would suggest that we allow most of this week to discuss, and start a 5 day vote at the end of the week, submitting the statement within the deadline if there is not a strong disagreement with the statement (and noting that a vote is in progress). Given that this is not an extremely high priority issue, our vote should be complete prior to the summarization. Alan

1 0

Survey from Geographic Regions Working Group
by Carlton Samuels May 4, 2010

May 4, 2010

Dear Colleagues: The Working Group has devised a survey we feel will provide a keener sense of our community's views on the geographic regions in ICANN. It can be accessed on Big Pulse at: Big Pulse survey instrument - https://www.bigpulse.com/p9044/register?l=en ( https://www.bigpulse.com/p9044/register?l=en) The At-Large community is invited to visit, register and fill out the survey. The survey link will be open for four (4) weeks through Tuesday 1 June. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels

1 0

ICM Vote
by Alan Greenberg May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010

I note that in the text on the Wiki at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_icm_application_for_t…, the secnd paragraph of the NARALO statement reads "The NARALO members present on the call considered this to be a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused." As discussed amongs the NARALO and confirmed during the 27 April ALAC teleconference, it should read "The consensus of the meeting was that this was a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused." Also, there is no need to repeat the statement twice... Alan

2 1