June 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by JJS July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012

*Dear Olivier & Colleagues,* * * *at the end of today's ExeCom meeting, under AOB, Olivier kindly gave me the opportunity to present some views on ALAC in an evolving ICANN. * * * *Background & rationale * * * *At the age of 10, ALAC naturally shares many characteristics with its parent, ICANN. One striking characteristic is the pioneer spirit in approaching major challenges and more routine work alike.* * * *Times are changing. Youth want to be included. Though faulty, the new gTLD programme is about to provide a sizeable increase in ICANN revenue, the allocation of which has not yet been prioritized according to clear principles. In some areas, project overlay and the constraints of PDP are making us susceptible to burnout. And the concerns of the wider community are still not in focus in our house, in which terms like globalization and the public interest ring empty in the large corridors.* * * *Change in ICANN is coming. The international dimension of ICANN will impose its logic, even without the full consent of this corporation. Echelons of decision will be simplified, because failing to accomplish this would push our structures into irrelevance. The new CEO seems committed to accomplishing tasks begun, before being drawn into new areas.* * * *The ALAC should seize this moment to examine its efficiency, and therefore its structures. My proposal is based on a few simple ideas whose implementation has proven efficient elsewhere.* * * *Clear, committed lines of responsibility. * * * *ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be led by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one of the three lines:* *1) Community, Outreach, Communication* *2) Policy, Process, Legal* *3) Finance, administration* * * *Naturally, this would remain under the overall guidance of the Chair, whose responsibilities would not change, but he/she would no longer be expected to accept being constantly submerged. Support Staff, a crucial element for ALAC, would not require more people, at least in the first stage.* * * *Why 3 Vice Chairs? Why not 5, which would make regional representation comfortable? I believe that the challenges facing ALAC are well beyond the pale of regions, and require both a holistic approach and equal engagement from all. My proposal is to concentrate on the efficiency of our structures, rather than on representation, as the latter is ensured at other levels.* * * *This is, in a few lines, what motivated my brief presentation this morning at the end of the ExeCom meeting. I'm looking forward to your comments.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * * * * * * *

5 5

Final Prague GAC Communique
by Alan Greenberg July 2, 2012

July 2, 2012

Attached is the GAC Communique from the Prague meeting.

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by Alan Greenberg June 30, 2012

June 30, 2012

Gee, some of you people do not know how to take a weekend off after a rather tiring ICANN week. I will be commenting on this at some length, but not today! Not sure why this is on the regular list and the internal one, but keeping my reply on the regular list. Alan At 30/06/2012 12:41 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Dear Fouad, Jean-Jacques and all, > >as sb. who has no say here neither, I dare to express my opinion as well: > >* to me, JJ's suggestions seem to be well measured and appealing >with a clear diversification of roles, commitments and >sub-responsibilities as an accomplishment - or discharge - of the >multi-multi functions of the Chair. I am often wondering how one >person / Olivier can meet all those expectations and roles without >sliding into a burnout sooner or later? > >* I have not understood that JJ suggests more positions or any >sounding titles but is advocating for a clearer assignment of >complementary functions to make the ALAC leadership more effective >and prepared for new and increasing challenges! > >Therefore, I entirely agree with his suggestions what may also >strengthen regional aspects and concerns. > >I would have strongly appreciated such moves, models and discussions >in Prague -- instead of repetitive briefings and permanent dancing >in a round (like secondary language or procedure issues etc.), as >mentioned at the ExCom meeting ;-) > >Kind regards, >Wolf > > >Fouad Bajwa wrote Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:03 > >Dear JJS, > > > >I believe we are At-Large and not extra ordinary. Why not allow the Chair > >to appoint Special Advisors instead of so many Vice Chairs should the Chair > >require it on adhoc basis and that ends as soon as the task ends. > > > >Even appointing more Vice Chairs would be a legal concern and would require > >equal consensual deliberation. > > > >In today's world flatter organizations achieve more because of remote > >dispersion but 24/7 Internet based availability. Highly structured > >organizations are a vision and bureaucracies of the past and are crumbling. > > > >ALAC has wonderfully pragmatic and ethically sound members from my POV and > >they do not need additional VP posts as such posts are to boast and do not > >add to the great meaningful contributions they make. > > > >ALAC would sound like a bank with such designations in a large number and > >it feels that we want to make another structured ICANN in ICANN. > > > >Though I do not know the fine print in details of what provoked such a > >motivation but WG and their Chairs work so make 3 or more alac WGs with 3 > >or more Chairs. > > > >You should look at the ICANN board. There is one Chair with the rest as > >members of the board where as the board members chair a number of board > >committee. > > > >Let us be At-Large and not Extraordinarily Structured. > > > >Fouad Bajwa > >On Jun 30, 2012 6:22 AM, "JJS" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> *This is to follow up on comments by Carlton and Fouad:* > >> * > >> * > >> *Dear Carlton,* > >> *- thanks for supporting the general idea.* > >> *- You suggest this be discussed at the next ALAC meeting, and taken to > >> the ALAC RoP WG: I agree. As I'm not a member of the RoP WG, I would > >> appreciate being associated with its work if my proposal is taken up.* > >> * > >> * > >> *Dear Fouad,* > >> *- thank you for your support.* > >> *- Number of Vice Chairs: I do not hold any religious belief about this. > >> I say no to 5 because representation of regions is not the point here. I > >> put forward the figure 3 because, IMO, the main tasks of ALAC fit into 3 > >> categories.* > >> *- You suggest entrusting these 3 lines of responsibility to RALO > >> representatives, and not to ALAC members. This requires legal advice on > >> whether the two solutions are really equivalent (voting rights, etc.).* > >> * > >> * > >> *Best regards,* > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> 2012/6/30 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com> > >> > >>> As an observer with no say in this, though I support many of the > >>> suggestions, I do not support 5 Vice Chairs for ALAC. There > should be just > >>> one vice chair to help the chair or two to sit in on his behalf if > >>> anything > >>> arises. > >>> > >>> Why have so many vice chairs when there are reps to the alac from the > >>> ralos. They are already helping the chair. You can have more reps on the > >>> alac if the work increases. Creating more positions in alac > should reflect > >>> ralo needs and not a new organizational structure on the top to honour > >>> people. > >>> > >>> Strengthen ralo participation and alac would appear evolving if you see > >>> ralo leaders rising up to share the alac burden, not the other > way around. > >>> > >>> vice chairs from ralos should then be allowed to participate in alac work > >>> if there is too much burden. Have the vice chairs from ralos come in as > >>> additional vice chairs to alac should the need arise but 5 vice chairs in > >>> alac is out of the question and gives undue authority to members to male > >>> public statements without following the bottom up process. No more > >>> structures should be made. The new gtlds do not call for more structures, > >>> they call for efficiency while sustaining transparency. Resolve the > >>> process > >>> obstacles and you will he happy without more structures. > >>> > >>> If our regional reps made such suggestions for new vice chairs without > >>> discussing with their ralo then I will be disappointed. > >>> > >>> Fouad Bajwa > >>> On Jun 29, 2012 4:07 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > *Dear Olivier & Colleagues,* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *at the end of today's ExeCom meeting, under AOB, Olivier > kindly gave me > >>> > the opportunity to present some views on ALAC in an evolving ICANN. * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Background & rationale * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *At the age of 10, ALAC naturally shares many characteristics with its > >>> > parent, ICANN. One striking characteristic is the pioneer spirit in > >>> > approaching major challenges and more routine work alike.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Times are changing. Youth want to be included. Though faulty, the new > >>> gTLD > >>> > programme is about to provide a sizeable increase in ICANN revenue, the > >>> > allocation of which has not yet been prioritized according to clear > >>> > principles. In some areas, project overlay and the constraints of PDP > >>> are > >>> > making us susceptible to burnout. And the concerns of the wider > >>> community > >>> > are still not in focus in our house, in which terms like globalization > >>> and > >>> > the public interest ring empty in the large corridors.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Change in ICANN is coming. The international dimension of ICANN will > >>> > impose its logic, even without the full consent of this corporation. > >>> > Echelons of decision will be simplified, because failing to accomplish > >>> this > >>> > would push our structures into irrelevance. The new CEO seems committed > >>> to > >>> > accomplishing tasks begun, before being drawn into new areas.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *The ALAC should seize this moment to examine its efficiency, and > >>> therefore > >>> > its structures. My proposal is based on a few simple ideas whose > >>> > implementation has proven efficient elsewhere.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Clear, committed lines of responsibility. * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be > >>> led > >>> > by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one > >>> of > >>> > the three lines:* > >>> > *1) Community, Outreach, Communication* > >>> > *2) Policy, Process, Legal* > >>> > *3) Finance, administration* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Naturally, this would remain under the overall guidance of the Chair, > >>> > whose responsibilities would not change, but he/she would no longer be > >>> > expected to accept being constantly submerged. Support Staff, a crucial > >>> > element for ALAC, would not require more people, at least in the first > >>> > stage.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Why 3 Vice Chairs? Why not 5, which would make regional representation > >>> > comfortable? I believe that the challenges facing ALAC are well beyond > >>> the > >>> > pale of regions, and require both a holistic approach and equal > >>> engagement > >>> > from all. My proposal is to concentrate on the efficiency of our > >>> > structures, rather than on representation, as the latter is ensured at > >>> > other levels.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *This is, in a few lines, what motivated my brief presentation this > >>> morning > >>> > at the end of the ExeCom meeting. I'm looking forward to your > comments.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Best regards,* > >>> > *Jean-Jacques.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > ALAC-Internal mailing list > >>> > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > >>> > > >>> > ALAC Wiki: > >>> > > >>> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >>> > > >>> > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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-Internal mailing list > >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > >ALAC Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > >ALAC Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by Beau Brendler June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

1 0

Re: [ALAC] More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Hi Beau It makes more sense for you to say something than for me. My statement was a disappointment that what was a multi-stakeholder working group with a range of proposals to improve the RAA for all users is now seen as just a GNSO working group dealing with LEA proposals in two party negotiations. But what you say is more broadly drawn. Comments on your statement: On redrafting of 3.7.8: the conclusion we came to was that even the new version uses the term 'reasonable' - and unless it is clear what steps a registrar must take for their behaviour to be considered as reasonable, the term can let registrars off the hook And I like the other proposals HOlly On Thu 28/06/12 6:36 PM , Beau Brendler beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net sent: 1. Support and submit the re-wording of RAA 3.7.8, as well as supporting the draft text language in the new RAA along with the whois guidance document. 2. Name a public-interest liaison from ALAC to the RAA accreditation agreements, which are currently closed. 3. Agree to collaborate with the registrar community to create a statement requiring the compliance department to resolve the problem of fake domain expiration notices. 4. Name a task force or investigative panel to review the work of the compliance department and produce a report by Toronto recommending an improved way forward. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels >Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:57 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: ALAC Working List >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting > >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and >remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive >point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >> contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >> relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >> pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >> enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >> the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >> was not added as a requirement. >> >> There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. >> >> There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >> agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. >> >> It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >> last Saturdays Board meeting. >> >> The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >> The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >> rather just the process that has been followed. >> >> Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >> the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >> substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >> the ALAC pass this motion. >> >> ================= >> >> The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >> with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >> June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 [1] >> . >> >> ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >> time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >> agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >> on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >> agreement at its closed session. >> >> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >> The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >> at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >> therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >> standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [2] >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [4]) >> >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [7]) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [8] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [9] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [10]) Links: ------ [1] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ic… [2] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlar… [3] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.at… [4] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommu… [5] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlar… [6] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.at… [7] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommu… [8] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [9] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [10] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Fwd: Revised motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this topic on the Thursday 28 June public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum topic list. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action nor of the content of the .com agreement. The process followed by the Board is objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. To give the impression that the Board is interested in additional community comment but then make a decision five days earlier is not appropriate. It is imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

1 0

More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by Beau Brendler June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

1. Support and submit the re-wording of RAA 3.7.8, as well as supporting the draft text language in the new RAA along with the whois guidance document. 2. Name a public-interest liaison from ALAC to the RAA accreditation agreements, which are currently closed. 3. Agree to collaborate with the registrar community to create a statement requiring the compliance department to resolve the problem of fake domain expiration notices. 4. Name a task force or investigative panel to review the work of the compliance department and produce a report by Toronto recommending an improved way forward. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:57 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting > >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and >remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive >point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >> contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >> relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >> pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >> enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >> the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >> was not added as a requirement. >> >> There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. >> >> There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >> agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. >> >> It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >> last Saturdays Board meeting. >> >> The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >> The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >> rather just the process that has been followed. >> >> Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >> the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >> substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >> the ALAC pass this motion. >> >> ================= >> >> The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >> with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >> June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 >> . >> >> ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >> time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >> agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >> on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >> agreement at its closed session. >> >> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >> The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >> at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >> therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >> standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Two points: 1. It is unclear at this moment if the GNSO will or will not pass such a motion. 2. I strongly disagree regarding Whois, and request that you defer discussion of this until I arrive (I am at the GNSO wrap-up now). Alan At 28/06/2012 04:57 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to >substance and remind them that we regret the renewal without the >thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the >substantive point of departure of our previous statement. We should >not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >was not added as a requirement. > >There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. > >There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. > >It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >last Saturdays Board meeting. > >The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >rather just the process that has been followed. > >Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >the ALAC pass this motion. > >================= > >The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: ><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. > >ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >agreement at its closed session. > >This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois was not added as a requirement. There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at last Saturdays Board meeting. The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. The statement will not question the content of the contract, but rather just the process that has been followed. Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that the ALAC pass this motion. ================= The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

3 3

GNSO Liaison Report - Prague
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

I am currently at the GNSO Wrap-Up session and will join the ALAC Wrap-up part-way through the meeting. My Report ========= I has been a busy but relatively calm meeting, at least compared to the last one. In terms of immediate actions required, the proposed ALAC statement on the .com agreement is the only one. The most interesting session was a review of a number of GNSO issues with ICANN staff. It was a "jaw-dropping" session in that there were a number of issues that most of us in the room found outrageous. The two main issues were: - ICANN doing significant work related to the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, including hiring a consultant to develop EPS (Extensible Provisioning Protocol - the mechanism used for communication the registries) extensions, all without any involvement of or communication with registries or registrars - the ones who are the experts in EPS and who will have to implement the results. - The URS, one of the key protections that ICANN has been claiming to provide security to trademark holders, has been found to be un-implementable at the specified cost. Although the URS was developed by a GNSO body (with involvement of ALAC), but the only notification of this problem was that there was a line in the proposed budget that ICANN was providing funds to hold "summits" to attempt to resolve the issue, all without any explicit involvement of the GNSO. - Digital Archery - well understood that the Board did not consult at all. There has been considerable discussion on issues related to the Red Cross/Red Crystal/International Olympic Committee, Intergovernmental Organizations and the wider non-governmental international organizations (and charities in particular). There are multiple activities going on and this is an issue that will continue for some time. It is quite controversial within At-Large and I would strongly suggest more ALAC/At0Large involvement as the processes go forward. A statement on the open Preliminary Issue Report will be drafted over the next few days (AG, EL, HR). I did not attend the bulk of the open GNSO session yesterday, as I was in the ALAC RoP meeting. I will review the records of the meeting and report on that on the agenda. Alan

1 0