September 2011 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Election Call for ALAC Officers to serve from 31 October 2011 to ICANN AGM 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

** Dear All, According to Rule 2.1 of the ALAC Internal Rules of Procedure <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/27854147/AL-2007-1-1-Rev11…>, the ALAC will elect a Chair, at least two (2) Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur. Rule. 2.2 states that all officers are normally elected at an Annual General Meeting of ICANN. Rule 9.1 states that the election call will be sent by the current ALAC Chair. In keeping with these rules, this message serves as the election call for the ALAC Officers to serve as members of the ALAC Executive Committee from 31 October 2011 to the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2012. The election schedule is as follows: *Election Schedule* 30 September 2011 Election Call /(sent to lists)/ 14 October 2011 Deadline for Officer Nominations /(sent to lists)/ 17 October 2011 Chair to post to the public ALAC list an "election summary" message /(sent to lists)/ 17-28 October 2011 Nominations are discussed 21 October Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination /(sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of the At-Large Wiki)/ 23 October 2011 Start of AGM 28-29 October 2011 Election of ALAC Officers 31 October 2011 Election Results announced 31 October 2011 - New ALAC Officers take their seats Please note that according to two motions of the ALAC, which were adopted during the 25 November 2008 ALAC Meeting, the ALAC Officers consisting of a Chair, two Vice-Chairs, and a Rapporteur shall represent different ICANN Geographic Regions. A 2011-2012 ALAC Officer Election wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2011-2012+ALAC+Officer+Election…> has been created that includes the following: - The election schedule as above; - An election schedule with the Rules of Procedure explanations; - ALAC officer criteria; - Nominations for ALAC officers. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ALAC Chair

6 6

ALAC proposed resolution regarding the JAS WG Final Report
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 27, 2011

Sept. 27, 2011

Hello, everyone, The proposed ALAC resolution regarding the JAS WG Final Report -- as discussed in today's ALAC meeting and prepared on today's ExCom call -- can be found below. It is now being distributed for consideration and review by the ALAC. A five-day vote on this resolution will begin tomorrow, 28 September 2011. This proposed resolution will also be placed on the At-Large wiki workspace dedicated to the Final Report: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+JAS+WG+Final+Report+Wo…. The resolution follows: WHEREAS the ALAC has long supported the requirement of reducing barriers to Top Level Domain ( TLD) creation in developing economies; and WHEREAS the ALAC has co-chartered the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) and welcomed the participation of many At-Large members in its activities; and WHEREAS the ALAC has reviewed and endorsed earlier milestone reports of this Working Group; and WHEREAS the JAS WG has produced a Final Report for consideration by the ICANN community that has been reviewed by At-Large; RESOLVED THAT the ALAC endorses the Final Report of the JAS Working Group and urges the ICANN Board to implement its recommendations; and RESOLVED THAT the ALAC thanks the community volunteers and ICANN staff whose work contributed -- and continues to contribute -- to the advancement of the JAS WG mandate. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, Nathalie Peregrine and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project Final Report
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 27, 2011

Sept. 27, 2011

Hello, everyone, Olivier has asked me to distribute the current draft of the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project Final Report (attached, as well as on the workspace listed below). While it is nearly completed, there do remain some questions to be resolved, which are marked in red within this draft. We are asking At-Large members to place their comments on the following wiki dedicated to this report: https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+workspace+on+the+ALAC-…. The report will also be a topic during the ALAC meeting on 27 September at 14:00 UTC: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+27.09.11+-+Monthly+Telecon…. (All At-Large members are welcome on these and all At-Large calls, unless noted otherwise.) Many thanks, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, Nathalie Peregrine and Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: JAS Final Report
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

For your information. We will be discussing the JAS Final Report and voting on it on our ALAC monthly call on 27 September 2011. Regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: JAS Final Report Date : Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:41:48 +0200 De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Copie à : Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Olivier, In my capacity as GNSO Council Chair, it is my pleasure to inform you, in your capacity as ALAC Chair, that the Council voted to approve the motion shown below during its meeting today. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair Whereas: The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and, The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations# <https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations>) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. and The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and The GNSO council has not had a chance to review the Final Report nor digest any of its contents, However, the GNSO Council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions, Resolved: The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review and approval, but reserves its right to provide comments to the ICANN Board on all of the recommendations contained therein; and The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on develop an implementation plan following the JAS WG of therecommendations, subject to comments received from the GNSO community , and The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff publish the implementation plan for public comment prior to consideration by the ICANN Board, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.

4 3

Fwd: [soac-discussion] ICANN 42 Public Forum Topics
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

Dear all, Please be so kind to discuss & email staff with suggestions. Staff will collate & the ALAC will make a choice based on the most popular subjects. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-discussion] ICANN 42 Public Forum Topics Date : Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:08:25 -0700 De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> Copie à : steve.crocker(a)icann.org <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] Dear ICANN Community Leaders, We are approaching ICANN 42 in Senegal, Dakar. As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 27 October 2011, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. We believe building the agenda with your input facilitates this forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about.This has been the practice in the last couple of meetings and we would like to repeat it for Dakar Public Forum too, although rather earlier this time. We believe publishing the agenda as early as possible will facilitate more informed discussions during the Public Forum, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting starts in Dakar. Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org <mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Dakar before the end of *Thursday, 13 October 2011*. We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. Thanks for your consideration and input. Kind regards, Steve Crocker

1 0

Fwd: input on participating in ICANN, IGF, ITU from Kieren McCarthy of the SFBay ALS
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

Thoseof you in the Governance list will have received this, but I believe this would be a useful opportunity for input for our ALSes and At-Large in general, so propose that these links be promulgated (on behalf of Kieren) as widely as possible by us all, and via the Regional Lists etc., by staff if the ALAC hair agrees... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren(a)dot-nxt.com> Date: 22 September 2011 03:24 Subject: [governance] Your input on participating in ICANN, IGF, ITU To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org Hi all, On Friday 9am at the IGF I am running a workshop on participating and barriers to participation in ICANN, IGF and ITU. It's a feeder workshop into the main CIR session. I have set up an online form to gather people's views so we can pull them into the session. Could you all do me a favor and fill in the questionnaire and also promote the link in whatever ways you can? Any help greatly appreciated. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/09/16/igf-participation-session Also, I am remote moderating another session on the Tuesday about how social media is impacting news. Have set up a similar page for that one too. Again, any help at all greatly appreciated: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/09/20/media-in-mutation-igf-session Cheers, and see many of you next week Kieren ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

1 0

Fwd: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

The following motion was just sent to the GNSO Council list by Tim Ruiz on behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. I will also forward the reply that I sent to the Council list. Alan >From: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> >To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Motion from the RrSG >Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:51:07 -0700 > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at the >request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it are >requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement Agencies >(LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any opposition >from other SGs or Cs. > >Tim > >-------------- > >WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with >representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the >nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools >available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; >and > >WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement >proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing >online crime; and > >WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its >long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; > >NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of >Directors that: > >1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN >staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of >receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street >address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. >Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, >and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within >30 days of a change of address. > >2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN >staff must keep on record, the names of each registrarâs respective >corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate >equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon >request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a >manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and >representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify >ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. > >3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web >sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions >may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention >(example: lawenforcement@xxxxxxxxxxx) to facilitate ease of use by law >enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, >include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the >general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these >points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for >other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement >agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an >acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours. > >4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date >of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice >of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and >identification system that allows for expedient identification to a >registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the >contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency as first >contact with a registrar. > >5. Implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by >the GNSO. Specifically: > > a. ICANN staff will analyze and report to the GNSO at six-month >intervals for one year following implementation, until such time as the >GNSO resolves otherwise, with the intention of determining: > > i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been >implemented and followed by Registrars, and > > ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be >considered by the GNSO as a result of experiences during the >implementation and monitoring stages. > > b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to >allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any >ensuing policy require additional amendment, clarification or attention >based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN staff.

2 1

Fwd: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:16:06 -0400 >To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG > >Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have >questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented. > >The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no >PDP is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such >rules into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they >kick in on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last >RAA change, ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to >get them to sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there >were still some that have not). > >Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial >incentives in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all >Registrars to be on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually >get this implemented in a more timely manner? > >Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars >will be obliged to pass on to their resellers? > >Alan > >At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >>The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at >>the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in >>it are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law >>Enforcement Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not >>garnered any opposition from other SGs or Cs. >> >>Tim

1 0

CEO and SO/AC Chairs roundtable
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 9, 2011

Sept. 9, 2011

Hello everyone, this is just to let you know that I have received confirmation that the customary SO/AC Chairs roundtable with ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom will go ahead on Friday afternoon before the ICANN Dakar week takes place and I have just responded that I shall be able to attend. I would appreciate suggestions on any subject which I should bring up for discussion. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

1 0

Draft statement on PEDNR
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2011

Sept. 4, 2011

At its meeting of 23 August 2011, the ALAC requested that I draft a statement on the PEDNR Final Report for discussion and ultimate approval by the ALAC. The initial draft was reviewed by the regional representatives on the ALAC ExCom and the revised draft below is now available for comment at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+PEDNR+Workspace (https://community.icann.org/x/DYCYAQ) ALAC Chair, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, has requested that comments be submitted by ALAC and At-Large for a five day period, followed by a five day vote of the ALAC. The statement is reproduced here for your convenience. Comments should be posted to the Wiki. Alan -------------------------------------- *DRAFT* ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration The Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP was initiated at the request of the ALAC in 2008, and we are pleased to see that it may now come to a positive conclusion. The original request was made because, at that time, there were absolutely no guarantees in place that a registrant could renew or otherwise recover a gTLD domain name if it was inadvertently allowed to expire. Earlier ICANN actions including the creation of a Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for most registries, and developing the Expired Domain Deletion Policy (EDDP Consensus Policy PDP) had been carried out with the intent of putting such guarantees in place, but business practices had changed and the guarantees no longer existed. The originators of the request for the Issue Report which triggered the PDP had hopes that the end-result would be far more pro-registrant than what has ultimately come out of the PDP. This can be attributed to a number of causes, including the need of the PDP Working Group (WG) to come to a full consensus on the outcomes, and this of course had to include the Registrar Stakeholder Group. However, the largest problem can arguably be said to be the extreme difficulty in getting active and continued participation in an ICANN WG by those parties whose livelihood and business success do not depend on the PDP. To be clear, it is a major challenge to get users who are active in ICANN purely as volunteers to participate, particularly in a process which often takes close to three years. This clearly endangers the balance of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. Given these conditions, the ALAC is pleased that some progress was made in advancing gTLD registrant rights and that ICANN will be taking positive action to educate, inform and support gTLD registrants, who are ultimately one of its core, often forgotten, stakeholders. As such, the ALAC encourages the Board to ratify the PDP Recommendations as approved by the GNSO. At the same time, the ALAC advises that the Board duly consider what might be done to ensure that, in the future, the multi-stakeholder model can be strengthened to allow users to more equitably influence the outcomes in future policy discussions. Such evolution is a core necessity identified by ICANN's Accountability and Transparency review as well as to meet the goals of its Strategic Plan.

2 1