May 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Reconfiguring the URS?
by Beau Brendler May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

And what, for heaven's sake, was ICANN expecting to get for $175K? It spends that on catering at a meeting. Someone in the executive suite needs to step in, reallocate some funds to something more realistic, and move forward. -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Sent: May 7, 2012 12:54 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Reconfiguring the URS? > >Thanks very much Alan for this. But this propensity to sideline MSM >principles on the grounds of urgent implementation, especially on matters >so far reaching, is disturbing. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> The following message is from the GNSO Council >> list and has generated a lot of reaction. >> >> To summarize: Apparently the potential providers >> of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System) >> have said that the described process cannot be >> done for the expected price (or even a fair >> amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some >> on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there >> was not at least a heads-up that this rework >> needed to be redone, and that the only formal >> indication of it was in a minor item in the >> proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed >> way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least. >> >> For a more complete summary of my views on this, >> see (including one from me - see my comment to >> the GNSO Council list at >> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html. >> >> Alan >> >> >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400 >> >Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? >> > >> >All, >> > >> >Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but >> >buried in the new budget document >> >(< >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm> >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) >> >just put out for comment is a note on >> >“reconfiguring” the URS. Excerpt provided >> >below. I guess they could not find any URS >> >providers that could do it for the costs that >> >they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 >> >summits to work on a new model. My question for >> >the Council, is whether this is really a policy >> >issue that should be referred back to the GNSO >> >Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own >> >resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the >> >controversy around this over the past few years, >> >any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my >> opinion. >> > >> >> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – $175K >> >At present there is a significant gap between >> >the features specified for the URS procedure and >> >the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we >> >will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure >> >the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one >> >session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 >> >plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize >> >URS Model in consultation with current UDRP >> >providers and community members; and conduct RFP >> >based on URS Model and select URS providers. The >> >goal is have a URS program in place and >> >providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. >> > >> >Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >> >21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 >> >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: >> >+1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / >> ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / >> www.neustar.biz >> _______________________________________________ >> 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… >> >_______________________________________________ >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

Reconfiguring the URS?
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

The following message is from the GNSO Council list and has generated a lot of reaction. To summarize: Apparently the potential providers of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System) have said that the described process cannot be done for the expected price (or even a fair amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there was not at least a heads-up that this rework needed to be redone, and that the only formal indication of it was in a minor item in the proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least. For a more complete summary of my views on this, see (including one from me - see my comment to the GNSO Council list at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400 >Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? > >All, > >Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but >buried in the new budget document >(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) >just put out for comment is a note on >reconfiguring the URS. Excerpt provided >below. I guess they could not find any URS >providers that could do it for the costs that >they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 >summits to work on a new model. My question for >the Council, is whether this is really a policy >issue that should be referred back to the GNSO >Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own >resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the >controversy around this over the past few years, >any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) $175K >At present there is a significant gap between >the features specified for the URS procedure and >the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we >will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure >the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one >session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 >plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize >URS Model in consultation with current UDRP >providers and community members; and conduct RFP >based on URS Model and select URS providers. The >goal is have a URS program in place and >providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: >+1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Reconfiguring the URS?
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Hong, you are correct that it is not knew. But the fact that ICANN had decided that action needed to be taken, the form that this action is taking is, and the lack of involvement of the GNSO which created the original plan (based on some VERY difficult negotiations between the various stakeholders) is new. You might remember that following the lack of acceptance of the URS proposed by the IRT, ICANN staff developed their own proposal (presumably based on the IRT model factoring in community input). That model was pretty well universally condemned. This sounds disturbingly like another go-around of that methodology. Alan At 06/05/2012 09:44 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Alan, the issue not new. WIPO, which tried 80% of UDRP cases, had >openly expressed that it could not handle URS cases at the proposed >price before and after FAG release. URS proceeding design (with appeal >and retrial) is several times more complicated with UDRP but the price >is around 1/3 of it. > >Given the situation of WIPO, the other three UDRP providers, which are >more "local" and "small", would not be able to handle URS as well. > >Hong > > > > >On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > The following message is from the GNSO Council > > list and has generated a lot of reaction. > > > > To summarize: Apparently the potential providers > > of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System) > > have said that the described process cannot be > > done for the expected price (or even a fair > > amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some > > on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there > > was not at least a heads-up that this rework > > needed to be redone, and that the only formal > > indication of it was in a minor item in the > > proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed > > way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least. > > > > For a more complete summary of my views on this, > > see (including one from me - see my comment to > > the GNSO Council list at > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html. > > > > Alan > > > >>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > >>To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >>Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400 > >>Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? > >> > >>All, > >> > >>Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but > >>buried in the new budget document > >>(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ > op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) > >>just put out for comment is a note on > >>reconfiguring the URS. Excerpt provided > >>below. I guess they could not find any URS > >>providers that could do it for the costs that > >>they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 > >>summits to work on a new model. My question for > >>the Council, is whether this is really a policy > >>issue that should be referred back to the GNSO > >>Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own > >>resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the > >>controversy around this over the past few years, > >>any tweaks to the URS should probably go back > to the community in my opinion. > >> > >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) $175K > >>At present there is a significant gap between > >>the features specified for the URS procedure and > >>the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we > >>will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure > >>the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one > >>session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 > >>plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize > >>URS Model in consultation with current UDRP > >>providers and community members; and conduct RFP > >>based on URS Model and select URS providers. The > >>goal is have a URS program in place and > >>providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. > >> > >>Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > >>21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 > >>Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: > >>+1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / > >><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > > > >-- >Professor Dr. Hong Xue >Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) >Beijing Normal University >http://www.iipl.org.cn/ >19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street >Beijing 100875 China

2 1

Msgs on GNSO Council list regarding Friday Board meeting
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

The following two messages from the GNSO Council list address some of the concerns that have been raised with regard to the cancellation of the regular Friday Board meeting. Too bad some of this was not included in the original announcement. Alan =================== >De : Steve Crocker <<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>steve(a)shinkuro.com> >Objet : Rép : SO and AC plenary time at ICANN meetings >Date : 4 mai 2012 14:49:44 HAEC >À : Stéphane Van Gelder ><<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > >Stéphane, > >Thanks for your thoughtful note. We're >gathering inputs, getting the Prague meeting >organized and will be sending at least one >additional note to the community to cover these items. > >The Friday Board meetings had been very lightly >attended and didn't really provide either >insight on the Board's thinking or opportunity >for the community to interact with the >Board. The other parts of the Friday schedule, >reports from the Board committees and reports >from the SO and AC chairs do provide a little >bit of room for interaction, mostly around the >SO and AC chair reports. I think that's >something we want to make sure continues in some >fashion, and we will weave this into the overall >schedule. We will also allocate time for >interaction with the Board during the Thursday afternoon session. > >Once in while there are Board actions that have >some content and even a bit of drama. The XXX >decision in San Francisco and the decision in >Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program >are the two recent examples that come to >mind. For matters of this import, we will have >a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did >this at the beginning of the week. This was a >big improvement and really helped set a positive >tone for the entire week. I think this is a >good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this >when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll >have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time. > >Another element in our thinking is that it's >usually inappropriate to rush through a >resolution at the end of the week based on >developments during the week. We need to take >some time to develop the proper >documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the >week off with resolutions passed on the basis of >the week's work, we will report on what's come >up during the week, what happened between the >last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we >plan to do following this ICANN meeting. > >I look forward to inputs from you and the other chairs of the SOs and ACs. > >Finally, we'll work hard to get this right by >Prague, but if what we do in Prague is not good >enough, we'll keep working on it. > >Thanks, > >Steve >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Regarding improvements in Board processes >Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:40 +0000 > >Hello All, > >I have been reading the various comments about >the announcement on 30 April 2012 that there >will not be a public board meeting on Friday 29 June in Prague. > >I thought I would set out various improvements >being made in Board processes to set this in context. > >(1) In the past, the Board has typically worked >with staff until midnight, and in some cases >2am, on the Thursday before the public session >to prepare resolutions for voting. This is >after a busy week listening to feedback from the >community, and the end result is often Board >resolutions that are poorly crafted and create problems in future. > >(2) For Prague, the intent is that the Board >will focus on listening to the community, and >then give the community some idea of what future >resolutions will be voted on in response to >feedback. A board meeting will then be held >shortly after Prague to approve those resolutions. > >(3) An example of this approach was on the topic >of Conflicts of interest in Dakar in October >2011. The Board listened to the community >during the week, and then in the public session >on conflicts Board members gave some feedback to >the community on specific measures that would be >taken with respect to new gTLDs. After careful >review by the legal team, and review by Board >members, the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 >- where a resolution was passed on managing >conflicts for new gTLDs, along with other >resolutions that resulted from the discussions in Dakar. > >(4) The Board has also been working to ensure >that most resolutions at the Board level are >relatively routine. This means that bodies >like the GNSO have already reached consensus on >a topic (e.g the recent work on the transfers >policy), or staff have managed a public comment >process on a topic - and there are no >controversies associated with the matter. For >such routine resolutions - we either have a >short teleconference or we take advantage of >face-to-face time at a Board workshop to pass >these resolutions. For example, at the Board >workshop just concluded in Amsterdam we had a >short Board meeting to pass mostly consent >resolutions. It is likely that in Prague we >will pass resolutions on routine matters in the >Board workshop on the weekend of 23/24 June - if >there are matters submitted by staff for >approval - and can report on them during the >public meetings. If there are controversies on >a matter, the general approach would be to seek >to return the matter to the relevant body or >bodies to reach a stronger consensus. Thus >you will see fewer matters that are not on the >consent agenda at Board meetings. > >(5) Where there is a major policy vote, or where >there are differing views on a major policy, the >Board will continue to schedule such discussions >for the public meetings. Past examples of such >matters include the .xxx decision and the >approval of the new gTLD program in Singapore in June 2011. > >(6) With respect to transparency. the Board has >been publishing rationales for each of its >decisions - including those on the consent >agenda. There are also detailed minutes of >meetings, where contributions from Board members >made during a Board meeting are captured. >For example, from the minutes of the meeting on >8 Dec 2011 >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-08dec11-en.htm) >there is a detailed record of the discussion on >conflicts as well as on batching. > >(7) We are still refining improvements and >certainly welcome feedback from the community. > >Feel free to get in touch with me if you have >any questions or concerns, and certainly feel >free to provide feedback to the Board in the Board/GNSO meeting in Prague. > >Also be aware that I continue to read emails on >this list, and I pass on examples of emails that >raise concerns about Board processes to the >Board list to keep the Board aware as well. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget posted for public comment ; includes proposed responses to requests from AC/SOs
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

Dear All, ICANN has posted for public comment its annual Draft Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Plan and Budget which describes the planned activities and required resources for the fiscal year. Read announcement here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm Direct PDF link to FY13 Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy13-01m… On Page 72 of ICANN's Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget summarizes the requests from SOs/ACs and ICANN's proposed response to these requests. Funding was approved for several of the ALAC/At-Large requests. The approved requests are: APRALO FY13-001 : Workshop and APRALO Mini-General Assembly at Regional Internet Governance Forums in Asia, Australia and Pacific FY13-002 : Workshop at IGF 2012 at Baku, Azerbaijan NARALO FY13-015 : NARALO Toronto Event AFRALO FY13-004 : Virtual Capacity building sessions for AFRALO ALSes FY13-005 : Workshop at IGF 2012 at Baku, Azerbaijan EURALO FY13-031 : General Assembly during the June 2013 EuroDIG meeting. http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/ops-budget/community-requests-07mar1… shows the full details on each of the FY13 SO/AC Budget Requests --- Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat

3 2

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

To all Working Groups. If you believe you have a public comment coming up, please notify staff accordingly. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List Date : Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:32:59 -0700 De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-infoalert(a)icann.org <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Dear Community Leaders, Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), it is time for me to ask for your input for an update on the 2012 Upcoming Public Comments list that is published at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/upcoming We are seeking your input about topics that you think will be opened for Public Comment in in the rest of the 2012. If your groups are planning on originating a public comment period on any topic that is not on the list or it is in the list but the entry needs an update, please let us know. Maintenance of this list helps raising early awareness about the issues among the ICANN community. Please send your updates to me until 18 May 2012. For your convenience, I am also attaching a template for the submissions you would like to make. Following the process, after receiving your input, we will update the list for 2012 and make another call for updates after June meeting in Prague. Kind regards, ----- Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List
by Carlton Samuels May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

Can we have this on the Agenda? - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Dear Community Leaders, Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), it is time for me to ask for your input for an update on the 2012 Upcoming Public Comments list that is published at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/upcoming We are seeking your input about topics that you think will be opened for Public Comment in in the rest of the 2012. If your groups are planning on originating a public comment period on any topic that is not on the list or it is in the list but the entry needs an update, please let us know. Maintenance of this list helps raising early awareness about the issues among the ICANN community. Please send your updates to me until 18 May 2012. For your convenience, I am also attaching a template for the submissions you would like to make. Following the process, after receiving your input, we will update the list for 2012 and make another call for updates after June meeting in Prague. Kind regards, ----- Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Fwd: Action Items from GAC-ALAC Costa Rica meeting
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

FYI. I spoke to Heather Dryden when I met her at the INET in Geneva last week and having already discussed the subject, this is our way forward. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Action Items from GAC-ALAC Costa Rica meeting Date : Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:51:17 +0100 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : Heather.Dryden Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> Copie à : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> Dear Heather, after reviewing the transcript of our very successful meeting in Costa Rica, I am now following up with you regarding the two action items from the meeting. 1. Following-up on human rights issues feeding into the policy rule-making, I extended an invitation to all interested GAC members, to our ALAC Registrant Rights Working Group which is open and would welcome input. This working group is tasked with extending the concept of "Registrant Rights" into the rights of Internet users with regards to Domain Names -- since it is not only registrants that are affected by Domain Names but also every Internet user out there. I therefore invite any of your members interested in taking part in such a group, either officially as a GAC member, but also individually, whichever is more doable, to email me and staff(a)atlarge.icann.org and we'll take it from there. I note from the transcript that during the meeting, there was interest from the EU Commission, Portugal, Australia, Mexico and the Council of Europe and hope that they will volunteer to follow-up in the working group. 2. Action Item: ALAC and GAC to form a small working group which will draft a joint statement on ICANN Conflicts of Interest There is very successful precedent in a small working group being set-up to draft a joint GAC-ALAC statement with the Joint Statement on Applicant Support, which can be found on: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-04aug11-en.htm The ALAC has taken a very strong line about the current ICANN Conflicts of Interest and has drafted TWO statements submitted to a recent public comment period. I invite you and your members to read them from: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-02apr12-en.htm http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-24apr12-en.htm The action item from our meeting in Costa Rica calls for a small working group to draft a joint GAC-ALAC Statement and once again, I'd be happy to receive emails from volunteers, Cc'ed to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org . I note from the session's transcript that Australia and the European Commission contributed to the dialogue and that this needs to be explored. As a reminder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat's suggestion for a starting point was: /"And what I'm thinking of is that there should be a closer examination of, perhaps, real cases of conflict of interest which appear in ICANN, and to study what these conflicts of interest are. Are they supposed? Are they real? Are they perceived? On the one hand. And on the other hand, it's to try to define more precisely the limits within which it is possible to operate. For instance, it so happens that someone noticed and put on a blog recently that at a recent vote of the board of ICANN, nine of the board voting members were conflicted. I mean, that's something which is quite -- quite amazing."/ I should therefore be grateful if you could forward these follow-up action items to your members and look forward to receiving an enthusiastic response. The GAC and the ALAC have a very important part to play in making sure that ICANN acts in the public interest and we have to seize the opportunity of this synergy to make sure it indeed does so. To miss this opportunity would be letting down 2.4Bn Internet users out there. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1