January 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Prague Schedule / Tuesday 16 October 2012
by At-Large Staff July 17, 2013

July 17, 2013

Dear All, Please find hereafter the At-Large schedule for tomorrow, Tuesday 16 October 2012 with all remote participation details listed on the ICANN Schedule: Wiki Agenda page: http://tinyurl.com/9h95fo6 ICANN Schedule: http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule Meeting Room Map: http://toronto45.icann.org/files/meetings/toronto2012/45-Toronto-VenueMap-3O ct12.png * 07:00 - 08:00 NARALO Capacity Building Session 2 Regatta Room http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34285 * 08:00 - 09:00 Joint NARALO / Fellows Meeting 2 Frontenac http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34283 * 08:30 09:30: Meeting with ICANN Board Metro East http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34289 * 10:00 - 11:00: At-Large Capacity Building: Next Steps Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34307 * 11:00 13:00: ALAC Policy Discussion Part 1 Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34313 13:00 - 14:00 LUNCH break * 14:00 16:00: ALAC Policy Discussion Part 2 Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34327 * 16:00 - 17:00: Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34353 * 17:00 18:00: At-Large Outreach Sub-Committee Meeting Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34361 General Meetings: Please refer to full Schedule: http://prague44.icann.org/full-schedule Thank you. 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

4 14

US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 9, 2013

Feb. 9, 2013

Dear All, The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a Press Release, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… To see the Bill, visit: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State and it has its challenges. This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 5

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote. If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have selected the wrong ALAC members. As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you respect point you in a direction. Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details in this situation. In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should. If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't vote can be urged on by their colleagues. Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything. Alan At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear Alan, > >My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we >(and observers) see how each person has voted.) > >I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted >online. The duration of such votes is typically several days. > >Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote >is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6 >persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination, >know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote. > >Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can >be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their >vote? > >Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3 >should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting >period is shown to ALAC members and observers. > > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > > >On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in > > June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are > > not in reference to named individuals). > > > > Those rules are: > > > > 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. > > 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. > > 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes > > have been cast. > > 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. > > 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. > > 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. > > > > Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a > > BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was > > first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we > > seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. > > > > Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of > > semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote > > does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes > > on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow > > viewing the list of those who had voted). > > > > Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it > > makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust > > procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. > > > > So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. > > > > I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a > > similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers > > in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: > > > > 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. > > > > This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that > > seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are > > that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should > > not change because we are voting electronically. > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: > > > > A) Should we keep the current rules? > > B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? > > C) Any other changes you believe we should make? > > > > We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and > > particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard > > for ourselves. > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >_______________________________________________ >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…

4 3

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

At 31/01/2013 06:14 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Comments inline > >On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That > > allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote. > >It *is* essential. Absolutely. And that information is (and should be) >published AFTER the voting period has concluded. Not during the vote. You missed my point. This gives ALAC members an incentive to vote, and more important, it allows their regional colleagues to remind them when they have not done so. And when the vote is being proposed by someone (as many have by me), it allows that person to nudge ALAC members to ensure that the vote is as complete as possible, and the result gives a strong message from the ALAC. Alan

2 1

Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals). Those rules are: 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted). Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make? We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves. Alan

9 11

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

What drafting team? Alan At 31/01/2013 02:31 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I agree with the rationale provided for by Dev. You stimulated interesting >discussions and it is healthy to review the philosophy of the rules and why >they are framed the way, they are. > >I also support Dev's recommendations for the Drafting Team. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh ><devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > Dear Alan, > > > > My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we > > (and observers) see how each person has voted.) > > > > I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted > > online. The duration of such votes is typically several days. > > > > Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote > > is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6 > > persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination, > > know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote. > > > > Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can > > be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their > > vote? > > > > Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3 > > should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting > > period is shown to ALAC members and observers. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg > > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in > > > June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are > > > not in reference to named individuals). > > > > > > Those rules are: > > > > > > 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. > > > 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. > > > 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes > > > have been cast. > > > 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. > > > 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. > > > 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim > > results. > > > > > > Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a > > > BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was > > > first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we > > > seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. > > > > > > Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of > > > semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote > > > does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes > > > on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow > > > viewing the list of those who had voted). > > > > > > Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it > > > makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust > > > procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. > > > > > > So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be > > made. > > > > > > I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a > > > similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers > > > in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: > > > > > > 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. > > > > > > This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that > > > seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are > > > that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should > > > not change because we are voting electronically. > > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: > > > > > > A) Should we keep the current rules? > > > B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? > > > C) Any other changes you believe we should make? > > > > > > We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and > > > particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard > > > for ourselves. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Carlton, I guess you have hit the nail on the head (so to speak) with regard to my proposing the change. But perhaps you did not do so intentionally. In an ideal world, everyone does their homework thoroughly and will vote their conscience. In the real world, not everyone does so, but typically do not withhold their vote or abstain, but either vote randomly (ie rock/paper/scissors) or simply vote yes because that is the path of least resistance. I would prefer that they follow the lead of someone they trust instead of taking those other paths. Sadly, on many issues, there is not a lot of debate, and not being "in the room", it is difficult to sense the mood, if there is one. In any case, we will see where the general trend of ALAC feelings lies and proceed accordingly. Alan At 31/01/2013 11:20 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >IMO, it don't amount to a hill o' beans; leaving #4 as is works just >as well as changing it. > >I confess there is just 1 issue that my vote can be influenced >purely by the vote of another person; IDNs and, by design. The fact >is I've hardly invested the brain cells or time on that issue. So >without apology, I form an opinion by taking into consideration the >positions of the acknowledged experts. The caveat is I have to >trust them to align my vote. > >Here's the thing. Generally speaking, if I have been paying >attention to the debate and the 'mood of the room', I wouldn't have >to wait to see how others vote to be influenced. Hell, might as >well do a 'rock, scissors, paper' at that point and be gone! > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in >June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are >not in reference to named individuals). > >Those rules are: > >1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. >2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. >3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes >have been cast. >4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. >5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. >6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. > >Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a >BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was >first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we >seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. > >Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of >semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote >does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes >on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow >viewing the list of those who had voted). > >Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it >makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust >procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. > >So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. > >I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a >similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers >in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: > >4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. > >This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that >seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are >that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should >not change because we are voting electronically. > >Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: > >A) Should we keep the current rules? >B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? >C) Any other changes you believe we should make? > >We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and >particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard >for ourselves. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >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… >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Dear Alan, My preference is to keep Rule 4 as it was (ie, how people voted only unveiled at the end and not in process). Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim sent via galaxy tab On 31 Jan 2013 17:12, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: > Hi Alan and all, > > > > When a change is suggested, there must be an obvious advantage for the ALAC > or for the At-Large members. Honestly, I don’t see such advantage except > that it will make people more influenced. I do prefer that the voters do > their duty of voting as independently as possible. > > > > > > > > My address tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org is not working properly any more. > Please > use one of the 2 following addresses: tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn or > tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : jeudi 31 janvier 2013 05:43 > À : ALAC Working List > Objet : [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules > > > > Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in > > June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are > > not in reference to named individuals). > > > > Those rules are: > > > > 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. > > 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. > > 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes > > have been cast. > > 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. > > 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. > > 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. > > > > Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a > > BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was > > first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we > > seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. > > > > Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of > > semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote > > does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes > > on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow > > viewing the list of those who had voted). > > > > Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it > > makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust > > procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. > > > > So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. > > > > I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a > > similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers > > in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: > > > > 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. > > > > This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that > > seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are > > that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should > > not change because we are voting electronically. > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: > > > > A) Should we keep the current rules? > > B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? > > C) Any other changes you believe we should make? > > > > We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and > > particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard > > for ourselves. > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > C) > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULTS: ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 29, 2013

Jan. 29, 2013

CONGRATULATIONS to the endorsed ALAC representatives!! Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim sent via galaxy tab ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: 29 Jan 2013 07:37 Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULTS: ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All, With 15 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement, we can confirm that the result is quorate. *** QUESTION: Should the advice from ATRT 2 Endorsement Committee be accepted? The advice is as follows: Factoring both the ALAC discussion in November 2012 regarding Olivier Crépin-Leblond as the ALAC's first preferred representative to the ATRT 2 (via alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>) and the Sub-Committee’s assessment of candidates, it is recommended that the ALAC endorse all of the following individuals as ALAC Representatives to the ATRT 2 via immediate vote: [in alphabetical order] - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (first preferred representative) - Alan Greenberg - Jean-Jacques Subrenat The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence that the candidates are qualified to assess ICANN's mechanisms for accountability and transparency and can do so from the perspective/viewpoint of the ALAC and the global At-Large Community. ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement As at Poll close: Sunday 27 January 2013 12:00 UTC Number of voters: 15 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 100.00 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes % 1 Yes 14 93.33 2 Abstain 1 6.67 3 No 0 0.00 *** Additional information on the candidates can be found on the At-Large ATRT 2 ALAC Endorsement Process Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/A4lEAg>. We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: n/a You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=290222VpPVIKLqqREdQ9PHWS All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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

2 1

Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10jan… This is a preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. 1.Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure b. Maturing the DNS Industry c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments d. Closed Generic Strings e. Consumer Choice Review 1. Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee engaged in a discussion with staff about a proposed regular reporting structure to the Committee on the status of the New gTLD Program, including reporting against key milestones. The Committee and ICANN executives agreed that there was some basis for modification of the reporting, and agreed that as much information as is appropriate will be provided to the community at the scheduled webinars, or other means where all applicants will have access to the information. The Committee also discussed the need for a regular meeting schedule. The Committee was then provided with an update on the status of the initial evaluation work. b. Maturing the DNS Industry No resolution taken. The President and CEO provided the New gTLD Program Committee with a report on his efforts relating to his discussions with various DNS Industry leaders, including the forthcoming CEO Roundtables. c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the planning underway to address the GAC's advice on enforcing applicant commitments through the registry agreements. It was noted that staff discussed potential mechanisms to address this advice, how the GAC advice could be met and possible responses to the GAC regarding the status. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. d. Closed Generic Strings No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the issue of closed generic strings, receiving a report from staff regarding the distinction between the Code of Conduct that addresses non-discriminatory access that registries are required to offer to registrars, and the concerns raised in the community about who is allowed to register in a TLD. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. e. Consumer Choice Review No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee began a discussion noting that it is necessary to begin preparations for the review required under the Affirmation of Commitments after the introduction of new gTLDs. The Chair called the meeting to a close. Published 22 January 2013

1 0