July 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Internal] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by JJS Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

*Dear colleagues,* * * *thank you for your substantial comments and suggestions. At this stage, our discussion has underlined quite a clear separation between function and structure:* * * *1) There is agreement on the need for clearly defined lines of responsibility. As ICANN is pushed into a new phase of transformation, so too must ALAC adapt: it must distinguish its most important duties from its more routine -if traditional- tasks; it must organize its work according to its own priorities, rather than being geared to react to agendas set elsewhere.* * * *2) Although there have been suggestions for some small changes, there is broad agreement on the definition of the lines of responsibility set out in my original e-mail, viz.* *- Community, Outreach, Communication,* *- Policy, Process, Legal,* *- Finance, Administration.* * * *3) There is no consensus on preferred structures. Some suggest that the lines of responsibility be integrated into the Executive Committee; others call for such lines to be led by individuals not necessarily seated on the ExeCom; yet others remark that such a task would provide the ideal level for the involvement of RALOs. Most comments dwell on the fact that the choice of a title (e.g. Vice Chair) is far less important than reliably performing a function (e.g. Community, which requires a stable, identifiable lead). A minority calls for a regional balance in leading the lines of responsibility, but most consider that regional balance is best achieved in other ways in ALAC.* * * *4) There is quite a basic difference of opinion between a minority which considers that the lines of responsibility should be dealt with in Working Groups, and could therefore be populated at the RALO level, and a majority which supports the idea of a more permanent approach. The latter considers that permanence would provide the additional advantage of visibility to both our community and to the wider ICANN.* * * *5) Several comments have called for any further discussion on lines of responsibility to be taken to the Rules of Procedure Working Group (RoP WG). This would indeed be quite normal, but the challenges ALAC and ICANN are now facing, render an ALAC-wide overview a necessity, if only to provide direction and guidance to the RoP WG.* * * *I remain at your disposal.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * 2012/7/5 Titi Akinsanmi <titi.akinsanmi(a)gmail.com> > Between a rock and a hard place (Yes I do like my sayings). > > Having read all mails - from JJS to Alan's this morning here are my > thoughts. > > *Labels, Positions and Structures in Volunteer organizations:* If not > properly managed can be quite detrimental moreso in a grouping that is > emerging from being viewed as 'unimportant'. That said - there is indeed > merit in being able to fashion out specific volunteering streams within > ALAC. > > *Work Streams vs Labelled Roles creating illusions/realities of superiority > and importance: * > > I mentioned this more to Olivier as Chair than anyone else - coming in to > ALAC as a newbie one of the fuzziest things is identifying where my > particular set of skills would best be leveraged alongside the value add > strategy I envisioned. Not a function of not knowing what I joined up (I > was warned - multiple times :-) for but rather an issue of having an ALAC > that is so convoluted: has people going off and doing their own thing > atimes to shine other times to truly move ALAC forward; also issue of those > with long term association coming with 'baggage' (good bad and ugly) which > deters efforts to move issues forward when engaged on and those who > genuinely would like to add value. > > In essence - my take is create work streams - label them if necessary to > add weight to the leadership but please lets manage the plethora of work > groups, committees etc etc that fragments our ability to engage as a whole. > The ALAC is becoming a bigger maze in the already convoluted maze called > ICANN and its WGs, Committees etc.(How many of these do we have currently - > those engaged on substantive vs organizational issues?) > > *ALAC Evolution:* > > Key is if we do end up with a formalized structure I would suggest its > along work/program/issue areas with leads appointed by those in that > particular grouping or by the entire ALAC membership. Each stream has a set > of deliverables/objectives that easily measurable. This hopefully (fingers > crossed) would foster increased participation than what currently exists. > > Finally in principle - agree to suggestion. Adding on more > elected/nominated/positions roles within though - I would caution against. > > Morning Thoughts from a close to term TT > > Enjoy the day ahead! > > TT > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >wrote: > > > Somewhere in the thread that follows JJS' message, I think that it > > was suggested that we should formalize these groupings with our RoP > > revision. I would strongly suggest that we not do anything of the > > kind. People's skills and interests vary, and assignments should be > > made in accordance with these and not cast in concrete ahead of time. > > > > Alan > > > > At 29/06/2012 10:05 AM, JJS wrote: > > >*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* > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Mrs. Titi Akinsanmi > > Consultant/Researcher > Mobile: +27 83 300 7105 > titi.akinsanmi(a)gmail.com > Impacting My Generation > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

3 3

ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching
by Alan Greenberg July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29jul12-en.htm ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching 29 July 2012 Opportunity for Community Input: Processing of New gTLD Applications At the Prague ICANN meeting, the new gTLD Program Committee decided to terminate Digital Archery, and instructed ICANN staff to proceed with the initial evaluation of applications as quickly as possible. This evaluation is in progress based on a tentative project plan that foresees the processing of applications in a single batch, and simultaneous release of results. ICANN believes this approach is consistent with the constraints that various parts of the community have in performing their respective roles in the evaluation process, and with the feedback received from the community at the Prague meeting. This comment opportunity seeks input on requirements for an evaluation and delegation process consistent with previous root zone scaling discussions of smooth delegations, adding no more than 1,000 new gTLDs per year. This outcome can be achieved by the: a. timing of the release of evaluation results to applicants, b. timing of the release of applications into the pre-delegation steps of contract execution and pre-delegation testing, c. metering of delegations of new gTLDs into the root zone. ICANN is committed to executing the evaluation and delegation process in a way that is equitable and meets ICANN's commitment to ensuring the security and stability of the DNS, consistent with previously established root zone scaling goals. Please write to newgtld-input(a)icann.org with your input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be considered. Background The concept of batching has been a part of the Applicant Guidebook since its first draft. Batching accomplishes three goals: 1. Better management of the evaluation process by placing an upper bound on the number of evaluators necessary and the number of parallel evaluations occurring at any one time. 2. Release of evaluation results to applicants according to a predictable schedule. 3. Delegation of TLDs at a rate acceptable to the technical community, consistent with the root zone scaling discussion. Based on the definitive information that ICANN now has about the pool of applications, and work on the evaluations to date, this comment process seeks input to meet requirements for goals #2 and #3. Leading up to and during ICANN's meeting in Prague, the applicant and community positions on requirements for batching schemes that would control the evaluation, communication and delegation of applications were reported to be: a. The batching solution has to be equitable. b. The evaluation results have to be announced at the same time. c. Successful applications should proceed to delegation phase without undue delays. d. Delegation to the root must be at a smooth rate and must not exceed 1,000 per year. e. The GAC is planning to issue early warnings shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting in October 2012. f. Consideration by the GAC of issues concerning GAC advice on contentious applications is not expected to be finalized before the Beijing meeting in April 2013. During the root scaling discussion, it was agreed that ICANN would not delegate TLDs at a rate greater than 1,000 per year. This is because the primary challenge with maintaining root zone stability is controlling the rate of change to the root zone system and not the size of the root zone itself, meaning delegation should not occur at a rate of 1,000 delegations on a single day. In Prague, the batching and prioritization method known as Digital Archery was terminated and eliminated from further consideration. Recent Developments Initial evaluation of new gTLD applications is underway. Applications are being distributed to evaluators in a way that enables efficient processing. ICANN has conducted pilot evaluations and had discussions with evaluators to accelerate the evaluation schedule. As a result of these discussions, the evaluation teams have committed to accelerate the evaluations substantially, while processing them in a single batch. In Prague, a methodology was discussed where the smooth delegation of applications could occur by first releasing applications that passed initial evaluation without the need for clarifying questions, then releasing applications in order of the number of clarifying questions required, from fewest to highest. After analysis, this methodology proved unworkable because 80% to 90% of the total evaluation time is required to form and ask clarifying questions, so little smoothing would result. The current plan indicates that initial evaluation of all applications, processed in a "single batch", can be completed in 11-12 months, possibly less resulting in publication of results in June-July 2013. Note: It is planned that regular updates to applicants during the evaluation period will be provided. In addition to written reports, ICANN is looking into the use of a webinar / conference call format to deliver updates. For applicants, releasing results in a single batch would mean that the first delegations would occur in late third quarter of 2013, six months later than originally expected. Implications of GAC timing: The GAC plans to "issue any Early Warnings shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting, in October 2012," meaning that Early Warnings would be received within the currently planned single evaluation period. Also, the GAC "is considering the implications of providing any GAC advice on gTLD applications. These considerations are not expected to be finalized before the Beijing meeting in April 2013." This is shortly before the currently planned announcement of initial evaluation results (i.e., the schedule without additional accelerations beyond those stated above). Statement of the Issue While there will be some natural smoothing as applications take different paths through objections and contention resolution processes, there will still be a requirement for some method of metering applications into the delegation process. This is due to the relatively high number of applications that may reach pre-delegation steps at essentially the same time. A metering method has not yet been determined and will need to be developed. Questions to be answered by comments Submitted comments should specifically answer each of the following questions: 1. Should the metering or smoothing consider releasing evaluation results, and transitioning applications into the contract execution and pre-delegation testing phases, at different times? a. How can applications be allocated to particular release times in a fair and equitable way? b. Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation rate? c. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach. 2. Should the metering or smoothing be accomplished by downstream metering of application processing (i.e., in the contract execution, pre-delegation testing or delegation phases)? a. How can applications be allocated to a particular timing in contract execution, pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable way? b. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach. 3. Include a statement describing the level of importance that the order of evaluation and delegation has for your application. Please write to newgtld-input(a)icann.org with your input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be considered.

1 0

Fwd: Re: ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project - Final Report for review by the SIC
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 29, 2012

July 29, 2012

FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project - Final Report for review by the SIC Date : Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:16:51 -0400 De : Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Copie à : Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>, Ray Plzak <plzakr(a)gmail.com>, Fadi Chehadé <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Olivier, On behalf of the board, I am pleased to receive your message and I congratulate you and everyone involved in preparing and delivering your Final Report. We await formal action by the Board Structural Improvements Committee. Steve On Jul 28, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Steve, > > On behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and as instructed > by an Action Item I was assigned during a recent ALAC Conference call, > I have the honour to forward to you a copy of the Final Report on > ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project for your perusal, as > transmitted to the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) in > June 2012. I understand that the Board SIC will present this (has > presented this?) to the Board for ratification. > > By this email, I need to pay tribute to the many volunteers who have > worked directly on this project; as always, their work remains > unquantified, although it is fair to estimate that this amounts to > many thousands of person-hours. It is truly a testimony that a > multi-stakeholder community is able to perform a self-review and bring > it to conclusion thanks to the many talents and determination of our > community. I trust that you will join me in agreeing that this is a > milestone in the At-Large Community's history, but also in ICANN's and > in the wider history of multi-stakeholder systems: a community of > volunteers having no financial interest in the matter whatsoever, else > than making sure the operational multi-stakeholder model of Internet > Governance works better than it ever has before, for the public interest. > > The At-Large Community is now continuing the work that has been > assigned to its many working groups to work towards a next generation > ALAC 3.0+. Work is well under way to reviewing its own by-laws and > procedures in its Rules of Procedure Working Group and sub-groups. The > undertaking of this continuous improvements process is key to the ALAC > keeping up with an Internet environment that is in constant change. > > Finally, I thank you and the Board for its recent messages of support > of our At-Large community. These have been such a boost for our > community. We have an increasing pool of motivated men and women from > around the world joining the At-Large to make a difference. Please do > not fail them by starving them of resources. The opportunity is there > to stand together to affront challenges ahead of us. Don't let ICANN > miss it. > > Yours sincerely, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in > order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in > order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our > personal life; we must first set our hearts right. (Confucius) >

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project - Final Report for review by the SIC
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 28, 2012

July 28, 2012

Dear ALAC members, following the Action Item I was assigned on the ALAC call, please find my email to Dr. Steve Crocker, Chair of the ICANN Board, including a copy of the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Final Report. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Fwd: ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project - Final Report for review by the SIC Date : Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:26:25 +0200 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> Copie à : ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>, Ray Plzak <plzakr(a)gmail.com> Dear Steve, On behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and as instructed by an Action Item I was assigned during a recent ALAC Conference call, I have the honour to forward to you a copy of the Final Report on ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project for your perusal, as transmitted to the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) in June 2012. I understand that the Board SIC will present this (has presented this?) to the Board for ratification. By this email, I need to pay tribute to the many volunteers who have worked directly on this project; as always, their work remains unquantified, although it is fair to estimate that this amounts to many thousands of person-hours. It is truly a testimony that a multi-stakeholder community is able to perform a self-review and bring it to conclusion thanks to the many talents and determination of our community. I trust that you will join me in agreeing that this is a milestone in the At-Large Community's history, but also in ICANN's and in the wider history of multi-stakeholder systems: a community of volunteers having no financial interest in the matter whatsoever, else than making sure the operational multi-stakeholder model of Internet Governance works better than it ever has before, for the public interest. The At-Large Community is now continuing the work that has been assigned to its many working groups to work towards a next generation ALAC 3.0+. Work is well under way to reviewing its own by-laws and procedures in its Rules of Procedure Working Group and sub-groups. The undertaking of this continuous improvements process is key to the ALAC keeping up with an Internet environment that is in constant change. Finally, I thank you and the Board for its recent messages of support of our At-Large community. These have been such a boost for our community. We have an increasing pool of motivated men and women from around the world joining the At-Large to make a difference. Please do not fail them by starving them of resources. The opportunity is there to stand together to affront challenges ahead of us. Don't let ICANN miss it. Yours sincerely, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. (Confucius) -------- Message original -------- Sujet: ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project - Final Report for review by the SIC Date : Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:11:57 -0700 De : Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> Pour : Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Copie à : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Olof, On behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Improvements Implementation Taskforce, please find attached the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project - Final Report, including an appendix of the status of all of the Recommendations and Action Items. This Final Report has been endorsed by the ALAC. Please could you forward this report to the members of the Board Structural Improvements Committee for review during their meeting in Prague. They request that if the members of the SIC consider the Final Report complete, that they forward it to the Board for approval, thus formally completing the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956

1 0

Fwd: RE: .com renewal and thick Whois-- next steps
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012

Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find a letter which I have received from Steve Metalitz, IPC, asking whether the ALAC would like to co-sign this. I will therefore be asking the question during the ALAC call today whether there is any objection to ALAC supporting this letter. For your information, the ALAC has already drafted a similar statement and sent it to the Board: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-28jun12-en.htm ...although it focussed solely on the Board's Closed Session to adopt the draft .com Renewal Agreement. Kind regards, Olivier

6 6

Fwd: Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

Following is a Call for Volunteers for a Drafting Team to craft the charter for the Thick Whois PDP. This is the PDP with the original intent of investigating a thick Whois for the Verisign managed TLDs. However, the Issue Report (link below) would also allow the PDP to address wider issues. The ALAC statement on the Preliminary Issue Report (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-prelim-issue-report-o…) expressed concern that if the PDP had too wide a scope, it could be derailed trying to address far wider (and complex) Whois questions. There are also those who would like to see the PDP address whether all other TLDs should adopt the thin Whois model. I encourage all who have an interest in this subject and are willing to do their homework reading the documents listed below to volunteer. Please distribute to those who may be good volunteers within your regions as well. Note that this is not the PDP WG which will form once the charter is adopted by the GNSO, but working on this DT will provide a good background for the PDP WG. Alan >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:06:24 -0700 >Subject: [council] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team > >Call for Volunteers for Drafting Team to develop >Charter for thick Whois PDP WG > >Introduction > >At its meeting on 14 March 2012, the GNSO >Council initiated a Policy Development Process >(PDP) on thick Whois (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120314-1>http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120314-1) >Following a short delay, the GNSO Council >decided at its last meeting that a group of >volunteers should now be convened to draft the >charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to >be approved by the GNSO Council. > >Task of the Drafting Team > >The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing >a charter for the PDP Working Group on thick >Whois. The elements of the Charter should >include, at a minimum, the following elements as >specified in the ><http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>GNSO >Working Group Guidelines: Working Group >identification; Mission, Purpose and >Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and >Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The >proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. > >Volunteers > >If you are interested to participate, please >send an email to the GNSO Secretariat >(<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) >You will be required to complete a Statement of >Interest in order to participate. > >Background Information on the Issue > >For the generic top-level domain (gTLD) >registries, ICANN specifies Whois service >requirements through the registry agreements >(ICANN 2009 Registry Agreements) and the >Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). >Registries satisfy their Whois obligations using >different services. The two common models are >often characterized as thin and thick Whois >registries. This distinction is based on how two >distinct sets of data are managed. One set of >data is associated with the domain name, and a >second set of data is associated with the >registrant of the domain name. A thin registry >only stores and manages the information >associated with the domain name. This set >includes data sufficient to identify the >sponsoring registrar, status of the >registration, creation and expiration dates for >each registration, name server data, the last >time the record was updated in its Whois data >store, and the URL for the registrars Whois >service. With thin registries, Registrars manage >the second set of data associated with the >registrant of the domain and provide it via >their own Whois services, as required by Section >3.3 of the RAA 3.3 for those domains they >sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin >registries. Thick registries maintain and >provide both sets of data (domain name and >registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries. > >The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on >thick Whois at its meeting on 22 September >2011 noting that the Issue Report should not >only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' >WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of >IRTP, but should also consider any other >positive and/or negative effects that are likely >to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be >taken into account when deciding whether a >requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent >gTLDs would be desirable or not. > >The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN >Staff on 2 February 2012 (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) >and in this report a number of issues are >outlined that will need further consideration >should a PDP proceed. The staff recommendation >notes that staff has confirmed that the proposed >issues are within the scope of the ICANN policy >process and the GNSO and notes that it is >reasonable from the staffs perspective to >expect that further investigation of thick >Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the >community generally, as it would allow for an >informed decision by the GNSO Council as to >whether thick Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not. > >Recommended Reading for Volunteers > > * Final Issue Report on Thick Whois > (<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) > > * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including > charter guidelines > (<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf) > > > > > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > >

2 1

Fwd: ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012

Dear all, I know that several of you are following the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT) issues closely -- and you are right to do so since the outcome of the WCIT discussions will directly affect our communities. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) member states will meet in Dubai in December 2012 to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), last updated in the late eighties. The big difference with the eighties is that it is proposed that the regulations would include the Internet. The ALAC has a WIKI page of relevant links for all of you to learn about the WCIT issues. There are links to further information under several sub-headings: - Internet Governance - Domain Name - IPv6 - Other Please be so kind to inform staff if you know of a good resource to list on that WIKI page. Also, if anyone knows of a good short, easy to understand introduction to the subject of ITU, WCIT & ITRs, please be so kind to suggest it for inclusion on that page. It is really important that we have resources to help our local Internet users understand what is about to happen and why we all need to be concerned about this. The message attached below, forwarded from ISOC, points to at least a partial opening of the ITU's document database and I hereby ask staff to add the link to the WIKI. The Internet Society has asked its chapters around the world to find out way to liaise with government officials in their own country and thus bring the input of individual internet users to the discussion. I believe that the At-Large community, which has a wide footprint by also having a local presence in so many countries around the world, has an important part to play in informing their governments that we actually take part in ICANN's multi-stakeholder policy making model and that we support the current multi-stakeholder Internet Ecosystem as being one which promotes innovation and development better than any other top-down system. You will find a list of the government officials of ITU member states listed here: http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=ITUstates&_langu… Please be so kind to find out who your government officials and local organisation observers are and discuss locally within your organization what you could do at local level to engage a dialogue with your local officials and ministers for them to make sure they are aware of the issues and not make the mistake of supporting recommendations that will cripple their local economy by crippling the Internet's potential for innovation. Also -- please email suggestions as to what we, the At-Large Community of ICANN, could do to continue promoting the multi-stakeholder model that we are engaged in. Warmest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [Itu2012chapters] ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents Date : Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:29:17 -0400 De : Sally Wentworth <wentworth(a)isoc.org> Pour : itu2012chapters(a)elists.isoc.org Hello, Today, the ITU Council took up the issue of transparency of ITU WCIT documents and Member State proposals. Karen Mulberry has, again, offered a summary of the discussion and the decision below. In short, the Council?s final decision is to post only CWG-WCIT TD-64 (the draft ITRs) for public access on the WCIT-12 website (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12) and that the ITU will have a publicly available space on this site for all stakeholders to post opinions and comments. There will be no consultation process as was originally proposed by the SecGen and no other WCIT documents will be made publicly available. The responsibility is really now with the Member States to have an open and participatory national process to allow for a full and transparent discussion about the WCIT. *============================* *ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents* 11 July 2012 the ITU Council discussed a process regarding open and unrestricted access to WCIT and ITR proposals and documents. The Sec Gen presented a plan to make the CWG-WCIT document TD-64 openly accessible to the public to address the public request for access, openness and transparency. The SecGen also proposed that any CWG-WCIT proposals that are made openly accessible should be posted without any reference to their source contributor. There was also a proposal by Japan to make CWG-WCIT TD-62 (the compilation of proposals) openly accessible as this would assist in national consultations. However, there were other countries that wanted all ITR proposals to be withheld from the public and not accessible without a TIES password. In addition, it was noted that changes to the procedures to enable the publication of proposals to ITU conferences will need ITU Plenipotentiary Conference consideration in 2014 before any open process can be adopted. In the meantime, it is up to Member States to conduct open consultations to prepare for WCIT where the Member State can freely share its proposals and information. Secretary General Toure also presented a proposal for a public online consultation to be moderated by his office where all stakeholders would have the opportunity to submit proposals and comments on the ITRs. The Secretary General thought that this would allow the ITU to strengthen its credibility and reputation as well as the credibility of the WCIT process, which have both been victim to a series of inaccurate media reports. The SecGen also noted that proceeding with an open consultation will continue to foster an image of the ITU as an open, transparent and listening organization; and will provide a transparent platform for all stakeholders to engage, participate and air their views. Submissions to the ?Public Consultation? would be posted on the WCIT-12 web site and MAY be considered by Member States when preparing their proposals for the ITRs. After much discussion, the Council?s final decision is to post only CWG-WCIT TD-64 (the draft ITRs) for public access on the WCIT-12 website (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12) and that the ITU will have a publicly available space on this site for all stakeholders to post opinions and comments. There will be no consultation process as was originally proposed by the SecGen and no other WCIT documents will be made publicly available. Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth(a)isoc.org <mailto:wentworth@isoc.org> www.isoc.org

4 4

Draft statement on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs.
by Alan Greenberg July 11, 2012

July 11, 2012

A draft ALAC Comment on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs has been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/BgQQAg. As noted in the wiki, this comment is a departure from related ALAC statements. It's origin was Beau Brendler's comment during the Prague meeting that previous ALAC statement rejecting all special protection for Red Cross in particular did not factor in issues related to consumer fraud. It was drafted by me with the active involvement of Evan Leibovitch and Holly Raiche. Any ALAC statement must be posted no later than July 16, 2012.

1 0

SSAC Letter to Board on New gTLD Process
by Alan Greenberg July 7, 2012

July 7, 2012

Also posted at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/faltstrom-to-icann-board-02jul1…. Alan

2 1

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