January 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Presentation on Whois RT Report
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

Thanks. I thought it was quite a good summary. Alan At 24/01/2012 04:52 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Very detailed indeed. This was really helpful Alan. > >Best > >Fouad > >On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > The following presentation was given to the GNSO Council at its > > meeting last Thursday and may be of interest. > > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-policy-draft-report… > > > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Presentation on Whois RT Report
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

The following presentation was given to the GNSO Council at its meeting last Thursday and may be of interest. http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-policy-draft-report… Alan

3 2

Global reaction to the US SOPA anti-piracy initiative
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

Relevant to ICANN because its provisions include legalized mucking with the DNS. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/internet-regulation?fsrc=nlw… - Evan

2 2

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

To get a few facts on the table: The mandate of this group was not to set CCWG rules, but to establish a baseline for what the GNSO thought was important before entering into discussions with the ALAC, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, or whosoever wanted to participate. That is clear in the motion. Since the GNSO rarely "delegates" responsibility to negotiate on its behalf to its Chair or others, it was felt that it was important to understand the overall issues from the GNSO perspective before entering into multi-lateral discussions (which for practical reasons will surely include a only small subset of the GNSO Council). Moreover, it was felt that input from the GNSO as a whole, and not just the Council was important. That being said, the GNSO did have an interest in ensuring that what it proposed was reasonable and factored in, to the extent possible, the needs of other groups. At the express request of the Council, I participated in this group and was more than a bit active. It is not clear exactly what will come out of the final discussions with other ACs and SOs, but I do not recall anything in the final results of this drafting team that are totally unreasonable. Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. I personally think that this was not needed, since it is in the Bylaws, but others felt it was good to reiterate. The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. If the interests of the various parties are so different at the start, perhaps a CCWG is not what we need. Note that this principle talks about the FORMATION of a CCWG. I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. It is not clear why one would enter into the creation of such a group if the aims of the participating bodies were not similar. In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to drop that clause as well, as it was felt that it was not sufficiently important to warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at that issue regardless of whether it was in the charter). Other CCWGs such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or another ahead of time. You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. If you recall the sequence of events there: - the WG came up with a suggested revised charter. - this time it was the ALAC that got to it first, and it was approved. - when it came to the GNSO, there was substantive discomfort and they did radical surgery to it, taking out some parts and adding others (one of which the ALAC really liked). - at that point, the JAS group would have had two charters, which in some cases could be construed as requiring they work in two orthogonal directions at the same time - something that was not tenable. - the ALAC revised its version, making it clear that the JAS charter had a core part that was common to both the GNSO and ALAC, and several other end-products that were unique to the ALAC but did not go against any of the core items. - that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the ones that they had not included in their charter. Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a CCWG will follow. The principles simple say that to the extent possible, the WG rules of the constituent bodies should be followed. If they were all the same, that would clearly be no problem. But in fact, other than the GNSO, I suspect no other organization has such a detailed set of rules. The ALAC, in its own WGs, has generally abided by the GNSO rules where they made sense and ignored those that did not. Perhaps some day the ALAC will formalize what its rules are. Or not. It *is* clear that the rules and certainly the practices currently vary, and although I am sure that every organization would feel comfortable with *their* rules dominating, what will come out of this process is some sort of a compromise, perhaps varying based on which bodies participate. And they will likely vary over time as we get used to these new groups. The principles are wisely completely silent on the issue, other than to say that the charter should specify the rules for any given WG. Note that this set of principles does not attempt to address (nor should they) how one reaches consensus within a given WG. Whatever rules are adopted for that group will need to address it, but it may be specific to the issue and who the chartering bodies are. The GNSO meeting where this will be discussed is on Thursday at 11:00 UTC. If anyone has any input for me as the formal ALAC Liaison, please get it to me as soon as possible (the meeting is at 06:00 my time, so I will be offline for the several hours preceding the meeting). As I cannot make suggestions for formal changes to the motion, please make sure to copy Bill as well. Alan At 17/01/2012 04:29 PM, William Drake wrote: >Thanks Evan. We've talked about this enough so >I'm aware of your general stance, which I >broadly share. But what would be particularly >helpful to know is whether AL has any specific >responses to specific elements of the proposed >principles, including suggestions of language >tweaks. If not ok, but thought I'd ask > >Best > >Bill > > >On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > On 17 January 2012 15:23, William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> wrote: > > > > > >> People may wish to have a look at the Principles > >> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf, > >> which specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a single > >> joint charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community > >> consensus per se, and so on. > >> > > > > Hi Bill. Thanks for the update, and for the efforts of you and the NCSG on > > the issue. > > > > The GNSO is welcome to do whatever it wants to unilaterally regarding its > > internal processes, but it cannot impose such regulation on others. > > > > As happened with the JAS group, I for one will not abide by any imposed > > regimen that prohibits an important effort from moving forward because a > > community (or group of communities) refuses to agree on a charter (or tries > > to scale back an existing one). Specifically, I would certainly not agree > > to any move that artificially limited ALAC's bylaw-mandated scope by > > excluding the interests of end-users. > > > > It is significant -- and very telling -- that the GNSO policy about working > > with other constituencies was itself formed in isolation from these > > constituencies. This was definitely an opportunity missed, but I won't lose > > sleep over it. It's my understanding that the At-Large Community has always > > been eager to participate in cross-community groups, but we will not have > > the terms of that participation dictated to us. > > > > - Evan > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

4 4

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

At 17/01/2012 07:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in >that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried >out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. > > >As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown >its own willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes >rather than policy (ie, objection processes). Actually, I think that "willingness" is the wrong word. The GNSO is not limited to policy work, although some on Council have at times taken that position. I view it more as stepping up to their responsibilities to look at a wider range of issues than just making policy. >If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also >have the obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based >authority to comment on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does. > >The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS >group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a >single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can >come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at >all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. > > >I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in >which the issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will >come out. In previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues >have been out of scope and are of no interest to them. If there is >future cross-community work on this issue I will not want to >constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for end-user issues because >it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are components of >the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but the >lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue >should not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly. > >There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. >If it is to be constrained to always be the lowest common >denominator of only that which is of interest to all, not much of >this will happen. I don't see any conflict here. If we (At-Large) want to work on something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG. We do it alone, or with someone else who IS interested. The GNSO is not the only game in town. If (as you allude) we have interested that are a super-set of GNSO interests but do not conflict, I would think that people of good faith could come up with a charter that covers this. If not, then it reverts to the first case. > >I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had >multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. > > >Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The >concept is still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of >an attempt to thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to >established power. There in fact have been a few - both with us and the ccNSO. But my point was that a CCWG is likely to be born out of a common interest. If there is none, then we need another vehicle. To be candid, I fought hard to eliminate that rule, not because I felt we were likely to need to invoke a multiple-charter group, but because I felt that there was no real reason for it. In any specific case, if one or more partners feels that a multi-charter would not work, they have it within their power to simply refuse it at the time. But this was not a battle that I won in that group. Once it goes to the larger community of AC/SOs, perhaps the pendulum will flip the other way. But I really don't think it is a major roadblock regardless. > In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, > we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) > error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO > approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to > drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt that it was not > sufficiently important to >warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the >GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at >that issue regardless of whether it as in the charter). Other CCWGs >such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or >another ahead of time. > > > >This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility. 100% agreed. That is my preference. My only argument to the contrary is that as real life unfolds, I really don't think it will matter a whole lot. >You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of >re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. > > > >If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a >post-creation divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the >WG. This is IMO unacceptable. I don't agree with the conclusion. Once a WG is born, there is no words in the current principles that say that a single charter is required for life. I do believe that some on the GNSO would like to see that, and perhaps on Thursday, they will say so and get their way. But for whatever it is worth, those on the DT were willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not mention it as a principle. JAS was born with a single charter and ended up life with two. If the WG itself had refuse to work in that situation, or if the two charters were really going in opposite directions, the outcome would have been different. > >If you recall the sequence of events there: > > >I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful >attempt to find a middle ground. > > >- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was >willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful >outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the >ones that they had not included in their charter. > > > >Evidence, please? > >The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, >but simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board. > >That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a >GNSO request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests >(such as fee reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund). Based on the outcome we have today, my reading is that not objecting is de facto acceptance if not throwing their arms around it and hugging the report. > >Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a >CCWG will follow. > > >Why does this need to be set in stone? > >Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining >the process before it starts is worse than counter-productive. Again we agree 100%. But for better or worse, the discussion has been started. Not by you or I, but started nonetheless. Alan >- Evan

1 0

Sharing an article interview to CIO Magazine Pakistan on new gtlds for raising awareness
by Fouad Bajwa Jan. 13, 2012

Jan. 13, 2012

Pakistan and the New gTLDs by RABIA GARIB on JANUARY 13, 2012 http://www.ciopakistan.com/2012/01/pakistan-and-the-new-gtlds/ Best Fouad

1 0

Letters from ICANN CEO to US NTIA and FTC
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

Perhaps of interest to ALAC members, two letters from Rod Beckstrom to the Larry Stricklng and Jon Leibowitz have been posted to the ICANN correspondence page. http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-en.p… http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-leibowitz-10jan12-en.pdf Both are in reply to letters to ICANN also found on the correspondence page - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/. Alan

2 1

Updated Statistics [Dashboard]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

Dear All, Thanks to Dev who kindly directed me to the Dashboards created last year, I pulled together some statistics and assembled them to see the extent of our Reach as a unit. Grateful if someone could help me with how many ALS's are in EURALO. The dashboards all across the Board *may *need updating. I will kindly seek the assistance of various RALO representatives to the ALAC to encourage the respective Secretariats to update the same or clarify the figures. The caveat with these statistics is that it is possible that there are new ALS's that are not counted in the dashboard. Aside from EURALO, it would be great if Staff could assist with gathering the following information within the RALO region: Countries with ccTLDs in ccNSO Countries with ccTLDs NOT in ccNSO Countries with ALSes and ccTLD in ccNSO Countries with no ALSes but ccTLD in ccNSO Countries with ALSes but ccTLD NOT in ccNSO Countries with no ALSes and ccTLD NOT in ccNSO It would be great if at some point we had some sort of consistent systematic template for the dashboards. I also noted a distinction in the number of countries that EURALO has on their dashboard and the one in * page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group which shows the modification of UN Statistics to fit ICANN regions.* * * *Only one more "x" to fill, so help please.* > *Number of At Large Structures within RALOs by region* > > > > *Regions* > > *Countries and Territories**[1]* > > *Countries and Territories that have ALS* > > *No. Of Countries and Territories yet to be reached* > > *No of ALS within RALOs* > > *Latin American and Caribbean[1]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn1> > * > > *33* > > * 15* > > * 18* > > * 38* > > *Asian Australasia and Pacific* > > *73* > > *16* > > * 57* > > * 23* > > *African[2]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn2> > * > > *54* > > * 15* > > * 39* > > * 21* > > *European[3]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn3> > * > > *75 (76)[4]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn4> > * > > *14* > > * 62* > > * x* > > *Americas[5]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn5> > * > > *51* > > * 3* > > * 48* > > * 22* > > * * > > > ------------------------------ > > [1] *The figures are the result of Modification of UN statistics regions > to obtain ICANN regions from page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO > Regions Working Group* > > > > ------------------------------ > > > <file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref1> > > > [2]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref2> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdHBJOWR6SDE5NWJzan… > > [3]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref3> > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdF9KTy1JZEp0YzNIRkhLNUdXVWlwSFE > > [4]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref4>The EURALO Dashboard in terms of number of countries differs from the > *page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group* > > [5]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref5> > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdDI2YTI2S0ppMkNYaUFPWmFDVFIzOHc > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

4 6

Preliminary Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

The Preliminary Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments requested by the ICANN Board in Dakar has been published today. A public comment forum has been opened until January 13, 2012 - <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm. It perhaps goes without saying that it is vitally important that At-Large review this document and provide any relevant comments by the deadline. Given the holiday season, this may be difficult. My personal opinion is that this Issue Report will trigger a PDP that will certainly last well over a year and perhaps much longer, as the issues may well be contentious. As such, allowing a few more weeks for comments may well have resulted in a better PDP without any meaningful extension in the process duration. But 1 month is what was decided. Alan

2 1