September 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULTS: ALAC Voting Delegates to the NomCom for 2013/Delegados del ALAC votantes ante el NomCom 2013
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sept. 13, 2012

Sept. 13, 2012

Dear All, I have read the explanation of the 2012 Nomcom vote results and I realise this unique situation has never happened before. Rule 10 of our ALAC RoP (https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rules+of+Procedure) covers the election of ALAC officers which is done by Instant Runoff Voting which was how the Nomcom vote was being conducted (allbeit with only 2 candidates). Here are the key sections from Rule 10 ( https://community.icann.org/x/rLbbAQ ): 10.4 Instant-runoff voting (IRV) will be used as the voting system to determine the winner. (ref - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting ) 10.5 Voters rank ALL candidates in order of preference. 10.6 If no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until one candidate achieves a majority. 10.10 If two or more candidates receive the same, highest number of preferences, a runoff election is to be conducted. 10.10.1 The Chair will select a new date and time for the runoff election, at least 7 (seven) days after the previous vote has concluded. in this vote, only the candidates that received the same, highest number of preferences will be eligible. The Chair will then immediately send a new “election summary” message according to rule 9.4, and the procedure will then restart from rule 9.5 As per Rule 10.6 and the Wikipedia reference to preference voting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Process) preferential voting works when there are 3 or more candidates. With two candidates, both having equal number of first preference votes, there is no candidate with the fewest first preference votes to eliminate and to distribute their votes according to their 2nd preference as per Rule 10.6 Unfortunately, the online system allowed ALAC members to select one preference in contravention of Rule 10.5 which states that ALL candidates must be ranked. Had ALAC members fulfilled their obligations by ranking all candidates and indicating their second preference, then the results would also be the same as the first preference as there were only two candidates. Thus, as per rule 10.10, since two or more candidates have receive the same, highest number of preferences, the ALAC should conduct a runoff election. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Españoles a continuación. > > Dear All, > > In the ALAC vote to appoint At-Large Delegates to the 2013 NomCom, the results for the Delegate from the Latin American and Caribbean Islands Region are: > > For the first preference candidate: > • 6 votes were cast for Jacqueline Morris > • 6 votes were cast for Vanda Scartezini > • There was one abstention. > > For the second preference candidate: > • 1 vote was cast for Jacqueline Morris > • 3 votes were cast for Vanda Scartezini > > As such, for the first preference candidate, an exact tie occurred and no immediate preferential candidate was selected. For the secondary preference candidate, Vanda Scartezini is declared the winner given that she received a higher number of votes. > > Vanda Scartezini is appointed to the position of ALAC Voting Delegate to the NomCom for 2013 from the Latin American and Caribbean Islands Region. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > ---- > > Estimados todos, > > En el voto del ALAC para nombrar a los delegados de At-Large al NomCom 2013, los resultados para el Delegado de Latin- América y el Caribe son: > > Para el candidato de primera preferencia: > > • 6 votos para Jacqueline Morris > • 6 votos para Vanda Scartezini > • Una abstención. > > Para el candidato de segunda preferencia: > > • 1 voto fue dado para Jacqueline Morris > • 3 votos fueron dado por Vanda Scartezini > > Por ello, para el candidato para la primera preferencia, un empate ha ocurrido y no candidato preferencial inmediato fue elegido. Para el candidato de segunda preferencia, Vanda Scartezini es declarada ganadora dado que recibió el mayor numero de votos. > > Vanda Scartezini es nombrada para la posición de Delegada del ALAC al NomCom para 2013 por la región de Latin América y el Caribe. > > Saludos, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<https://owa.icann.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=bae4382542ca489294ee2fc9c14ad9f8&URL…> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of AoC Whois Report Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

:-) At 11/09/2012 12:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 11 September 2012 12:19, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >However, on re-reading our statement, I find that it is less than >clear. Or gramatically correct. > >I suggest replacing it with: > > >Perhaps, but not obvious. Changes would likely be the result of > >bilateral negotiations between the parties and ICANN. *If* > >registries and/or registrars will need to take action, such as for > >increased reporting, policy development may be required. > > >Nice catch by Sala. Great edit by Alan. I'm very comfortable with >the result, good to send IMO. > >- Evan > > > > >So thanks for causing me to reread it! :-) > >Alan > >At 11/09/2012 05:49 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Dear Alan, > > > >Just a suggestion for minor edits. This is particularly when > >rendering advice to the Board, where we use language like "perhaps" > >can communicate "indecision" or "ambiguity" and we need to use firm > >and clear language because we are advising them. > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [Chapter-delegates] BOLIVIA busca expertos para apoyar Programa Nacional de Tele-Educación para uso de Satélite Túpac Katari
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

I could tell you about our experiences from The University of the West Indies and the Caribbean Knowledge and Learning Network. Again from the Caribbean, Daniel Pimienta from Funredes in the Dominican Republic could also be a resource. - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= 2012/9/10 Houle Louis <Louis.Houle(a)oricom.ca> > Creo que la experienca de la Tele-Universidad de Quebec puede interessar > le! > > Louis Houle > Président > La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) > Louis.Houle(a)isocquebec.org > > Le 2012-09-06 10:26, Eduardo Rojas a écrit : > > Estimados colegas de la comunidad ISOC, > > El gobierno Boliviano me ha encomendado el diseño del Programa Nacional > de > > Uso Educativo del Satélite Túpac Katari en Bolivia. Consideramos que es > una > > oportunidad para involucrar a ka comunidad ISOC en el diseño de una > política > > pública de largo plazo y que tiene a ver con el uso de Internet y las > > comunicaciones satelitales. > > Les ruego ayudarnos a contactar personas con experiencia en > tele-educaciónque la experiencia en tele-education de la Télé > > interesadas en apoyar este proceso y visitar Bolivia por invitación de mi > > gobierno. > > MAS INFO: > > > http://www.fundacionredes.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& > > > amp;id=116:oportunidad-laboral-tele-educacion&catid=7:noticias&Itemi > > d=1 > > Saludos cordiales, > > > > > > > > > > > > J. Eduardo Rojas > > Miembro del Directorio ISOC Bolivia > > Plaza Zenón Iturralde Nº 134 “B” (Zona San Jorge) > > Tel/fax: (5919) 2-2912598 > > CASILLA POSTAL: 14533 > > www.fundacionredes.org > > Móvil: 70647683 > > Skype/Twitter/Facebook/LinkedInk: “eduardosocio” > > La Paz / Bolivia – Latinoamérica > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed > > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society > > Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of AoC Whois Report Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

Sala, these are sage words, but sadly not applicable to our position on Rec 8 (which is the one using the word "perhaps"). Although I would far prefer to offer unequivocal advice that the Board could act on its own, it is not at all clear. This recommendation talks about contract content and possible additional reporting. Some aspects of contracts with registrars and registries are decided by bilateral negotiations with ICANN (sanctions in my mind fall in this category), but requiring additional Whois-related reporting might well fall under Consensus policy. Without a thorough analysis from compliance, we really don't know what is missing at this point (we certainly know part of what is missing, but whether that is the whole story I don't feel competent to judge. However, on re-reading our statement, I find that it is less than clear. Or gramatically correct. I suggest replacing it with: >Perhaps, but not obvious. Changes would likely be the result of >bilateral negotiations between the parties and ICANN. *If* >registries and/or registrars will need to take action, such as for >increased reporting, policy development may be required. So thanks for causing me to reread it! :-) Alan At 11/09/2012 05:49 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > >Just a suggestion for minor edits. This is particularly when >rendering advice to the Board, where we use language like "perhaps" >can communicate "indecision" or "ambiguity" and we need to use firm >and clear language because we are advising them.

2 1

Analysis of AoC Whois Report Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

Olivier, attached is a re-worked version of the Whois report recommendations. I have made some adjustments based on ALAC feedback - specifically that the statements be made clearer regarding whether GNSO action is required prior to the Board initiating action. I have also added a short preamble making the overall assessment clear - of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO action, 3 may at a later stage, and only one requires new policy before the Board can take substantive action. Note that the Board workshop begins on Wednesday, so presuming that this document is satisfactory, it should be transmitted to the Board today. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2012

Sept. 8, 2012

You can find the details of the current studies at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies. Alan At 04/09/2012 11:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>By the way, do you know when in 2012 the studies are due to be >>completed. I would be most interested in reading the Reports. > >Don't off-hand know. Would have to do some research first. > >I would be grateful.

4 8

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

Just a note to say we should be careful about attributing to the "GNSO" or the "GNSO Council" things that are being said by a small subset. The GNSO has not so far replied to the Board request for input. They may or may not do so after their next meeting on Sept. 13. Alan At 05/09/2012 12:54 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >@ Evan, I am of the understanding that the call for feedback that >Alan was after was specifically for the GNSO lot. [This is not to >stop other SOs, ACs and other constituencies (including cross >constituencies) from implementing or participating in the process. I >am interpreting the GNSO's actions as them taking responsibility of >things that they need to do in order. I noted how the Report >referred to the swiftness with which they undertook certain studies >after GAC made calls for these.] This is not to be interpreted as me >defending GNSO but rather my understanding of the context within >which Alan is making his call for feedback from the ALAC. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch ><<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. Period. The > > statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and added that six of > > the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) and that there was no > > reason the Board could not act quickly (and without GNSO creating a line of > > policy). > > > > As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the whether we > > believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the other 10. The > > document addresses that. > > > >Again, I understand this. I am simply offering the opinion that adding the >minutiae at this level weakens our core point that *we want it all*. > >As I said, I am not disagreeing with the work that you have done, along >with Carlton's and Rinalia's additions. I just submit that this research is >more of a followup or appendix to the core statement than part of it. It's >supporting documentation offering suggestions on how to follow our advice, >but it's not the advice itself. I assert that there is a clear distinction >between core advice and its supporting documentation. > >The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking about the > > strength of the multi-stakeholder model. > > > >I can't put words in the mouths of others. When I speak, it's on the >advantages of being multi-stakeholder in general. That said, I am no fan of >the current ICANN implementation which makes following industry advice >mandatory but non-conflicted public interest advice optional. > >Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore the > > bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment period > > first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances reasonably allow > > such direct action. > > > >I guess, then. we have a fundamental difference on what constitutes "the >bulk of stakeholders". In my mind ICANN has largely ignored the bulk of its >stakeholders as long as it has existed. What now exists in the GNSO is a >self-selected group of insiders that resists newcomers (let alone outreach) >and uses its undue influence to sway ICANN in ways that do not serve the >public good. The very fact that we even need to have a "debate" on having >robust WHOIS serves a stark evidence of this reality. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

At 05/09/2012 12:44 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. >Period. The statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and >added that six of the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) >and that there was no reason the Board could not act quickly (and >without GNSO creating a line of policy). > >As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the >whether we believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the >other 10. The document addresses that. > > >Again, I understand this. I am simply offering the opinion that >adding the minutiae at this level weakens our core point that we want it all. > >As I said, I am not disagreeing with the work that you have done, >along with Carlton's and Rinalia's additions. I just submit that >this research is more of a followup or appendix to the core >statement than part of it. It's supporting documentation offering >suggestions on how to follow our advice, but it's not the advice >itself. I assert that there is a clear distinction between core >advice and its supporting documentation. Then what are we differing on? This table was never meant to be more than a supplement to the "advice". That is why in my opening note I suggested that Olivier might just call for an "any objections" instead of submitting this to a formal vote. >The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking >about the strength of the multi-stakeholder model. > > >I can't put words in the mouths of others. When I speak, it's on the >advantages of being multi-stakeholder in general. That said, I am no >fan of the current ICANN implementation which makes following >industry advice mandatory but non-conflicted public interest advice optional. > >Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore >the bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment >period first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances >reasonably allow such direct action. > > >I guess, then. we have a fundamental difference on what constitutes >"the bulk of stakeholders". In my mind ICANN has largely ignored the >bulk of its stakeholders as long as it has existed. What now exists >in the GNSO is a self-selected group of insiders that resists >newcomers (let alone outreach) and uses its undue influence to sway >ICANN in ways that do not serve the public good. The very fact that >we even need to have a "debate" on having robust WHOIS serves a >stark evidence of this reality. We do not basically disagree on this. The structure of the GNSO is not what I believe it should be and I hope it will change (and will work to see it happen. But we have little choice but to work within the Bylaws that we now have. There is a place for that battle (I hope), but for now we are simply trying to get the Board to implement the Whois report as fast the system allows, and our reinforcing that the GNSO does not need to be involved in the bulk of it will hopefully help. When I said "the bulk of the stakeholders" above, that was us as well. We are saying that the Board should act without further community involvement other than a final comment period. We believe that is the correct course of action here. but in some other situation, the Board acting without significant community involvement is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's what got us digital archery. Alan >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

At 04/09/2012 05:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 4 September 2012 17:29, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Evan, we are certainly not bound by the politics or practices of the >GNSO, and pointedly, that is why I suggested that a PDP might not >always be necessary in the GNSO giving policy advice to the Board. >But we are bound by the ICANN Bylaws, unless we are explicitly >suggesting that they be changed. And currently the Bylaws do specify >that the GNSO is the body that formulates and recommends GNSO Policy >to the Board. The catch in this case is determining what is >upper-case-P gTLD policy, and what is not. And we are making the >case that with one exception, the initial implementation of the >recommendations are NOT upper-case-P gTLD policy. > > >I hear you. But that's a level of detail one step down from the core >message, which (AFAIK) is not yet agreed to. > >We need full buy-in on the "what" (WHOIS fixing is an immediate >priority) before dealing with "how" (many of the RT things can be >done by staff without re-consulting the GNSO). >If the Board is not in agreement that this is a priority to fix >quickly, it will punt the recommendations to the GNSO, including the >ones it doesn't need to. > >Even agreeing that certain matters are pure implementation that can >be done by staff is not assurance of anything, as we have seen >through the current sad state of contractual compliance. So it is >important that we get across as our main point -- as forcefully as >possible -- that the status quo is unacceptable. How ICANN addresses >that problem (assuming it agrees), while important, is secondary. >What point is arguing details if we don't have buy-in on the principle? > >Perhaps my cynicism (that the Board lacks our concern about the >broken state of WHOIS implementation and enforcement) is >unwarranted. I certainly hope so. > >- Evan We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. Period. The statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and added that six of the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) and that there was no reason the Board could not act quickly (and without GNSO creating a line of policy). As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the whether we believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the other 10. The document addresses that. The Board has little wriggle room on whether to address all of the Recs. In the next A&T review, they will be judged on it and they better have a rock-solid rationale for rejecting any of the Recs. What they do have is flexibility on how they are to address the Recs and our point is that for most of them, they need not and cannot shove them off on the GNSO before doing anything. I.E. No punting in most cases. Or at least, that is how I see it. The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking about the strength of the multi-stakeholder model. Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore the bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment period first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances reasonably allow such direct action. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

For clarity, I am just extracting the parts that I am replying to. At 04/09/2012 06:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Recommendation1: To make Whois a Strategic Priority >>The commissioning of the Review by ICANN is an indication of the >>strategic importance and manner in which the Review Team was >>constituted. However, ICANN needs to monitor and evaluate the >>implementation process. As far as the GNSO is concerned they have >>following advice from the GAC undertaken to do four studies namely >>the Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois >>Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and >>Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012. I >>am not sure what the status of the Studies are but I can only >>hypothesize that to the extent that this would affect existing >>consensus Policies, then parts of the PDP may apply. However, if >>the existing consensus policies address in principle areas that may >>require a PDP process then we should be open to that. I understand >>that this may be a negligible caveat. > >It is correct that addressing the substantive Whois issues may well >require (well, almost surely require) GNSO policy development, that >is not the subject of this Rec. It is solely that the ICANN go on >records as saying it is important and conveying that message out to >the GNSO as well as other parts of the wider ICANN community. > >By the way, do you know when in 2012 the studies are due to be >completed. I would be most interested in reading the Reports. Don't off-hand know. Would have to do some research first. >>Recommendation 9 Data Accuracy: Track Impact of Whois Data Reminder >>Policy and Possible Replacement >> >>The Report clearly outlines the fact that the Whois Data Reminder >>Policy so without a doubt there is need to review and revise the >>Policy. I would say, yes GNSO much initiate discussions. To save >>time there may be things within the Reminder Policy that do not >>need to be debated again although there is always the exception. >>There are many models of doing things and Registrars can select >>what works for them and it would help to at least outline a few >>generic ones. At the moment, I can deduce that the focus has been >>based on the actual "data" and if one methodology does'nt work, >>there should be enough innovation to suggest alternative methods >>that can be either customer centric or otherwise. > >The current WDRP is a Consensus Policy and as such must be adhered >to by registrars. The report suggest that we first try to develop >metrics to gauge's its effectiveness. If that is not possible, or >implicitly if the metrics say it is not effective, a new policy >shouldbe developed. > >This Report very bluntly mentions the failure of the WDRP. In terms >of metrics, I would have thought that the NORC study would have >teased these out already. The NORC study is looking at Whois accuracy, not how it changes over time with respect to WDRP. These days, we try to make sure that when a new policy is implemented, we can get some metrics to track it (not always possible of course). When the WDRP was put in place, we had no such concept. So registrars send out the notices and registrants get them, but we do not know how many registrants adjust their Whois info in response to the reminder. That is the thrust of the recommendation. Alan

2 1