May 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

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