October 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 16, 2013

Oct. 16, 2013

Congratulations to Carlton for being named to this group led by Vint Cerf. See http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14oct13-en.htm. Alan

4 3

Fwd: Upcoming Event to Discuss Name Collisions
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

FYI - please note the follow-up from Verisign on Name Collisions. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Upcoming Event to Discuss Name Collisions Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:34:54 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com) <ocl(a)gih.com> Hi Olivier, I hope you're doing well! I wanted to bring this October 29 event to your attention. http://gtld-collision.eventbrite.com/ <http://gtld-collision.eventbrite.com/> Verisign is working with OTA and others to support this effort to bring interested parties together to further discuss the name collision issue in light of ICANN's recent announcement and NGPC vote. Our goal is to bring together potentially impacted parties and have a constructive technical and policy dialogue around a relatively new concept -- mitigating name collisions through SLD blocking -- that was just approved by the NGPC with insufficient public consideration. The event will take place in Virginia (near Dulles Airport), but the plan is to enable remote participation. ICANN and new gTLD applicants will of course be invited to participate. Verisign is continuing to review ICANN's latest plan <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1…> to mitigate the risks and impacts from name collisions and we are concerned that ICANN may have again missed an opportunity. While the newest proposal demonstrates that progress was made by ICANN in several areas, including agreeing to implement SSAC advice, to conduct an educational outreach program and to conduct a qualitative analysis of each string prior to delegation, we are concerned by ICANN's "alternate path to delegation," as described in Section 3.3 of the Collision Occurrence Management Plan. It would appear that this "alternate path" is based solely on query volume indicators from a potentially insufficient subset of root zone data. If so, it would appear to be a circumvention of the necessary study that ICANN has otherwise finally agreed to conduct. The "alternate path" mechanism focuses on the blocking of a list of second-level domains (SLDs) taken from the DITL data. Such blocking is however untested in this context and we are reviewing the potential impacts that such blocking might cause. At this early point, we believe it is premature to conclude that this mechanism truly addresses the risks of and from collisions. We plan to say more about the "alternate path" concept once our review is complete, which we expect before the end of the month. We remain concerned with ICANN's processes for the introduction of this new proposal. It goes without saying that**ICANN should have posted the Collision Occurrence Management Plan, especially the newly introduced concept and methodology in Section 3.3 and the staff analysis of public comments prior to putting it to the NGPC for a vote. Had the staff recommendation only sought authorization to conduct further study and/or to develop an additional plan that would have been posted for public review and comment, we would have no argument with the procedures followed leading to the NGPC vote. Instead, ICANN staff has recommended, and the NGPC has authorized, a new process that was not previously subject to scrutiny or public comment and which we believe may actually circumvent the intent of the remaining NGPC resolutions. I'd welcome your thoughts on this, both personally and if the ALAC has reviewed and discussed ICANN's plan. If you're interested in participating in the event, please let me know. Regards, Keith

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- NGPC Resolution for Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 10, 2013

Oct. 10, 2013

Curious this. A study results in another study in order to develop a management framework for name collisions. Why not just go from one study to the management framework? Can someone explain it to me so that I understand the situation better? Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Oct 9, 2013 11:41 PM Subject: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- NGPC Resolution for Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08oct13-en.htm ________________________________ NGPC Resolution for Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions 8 October 2013 At its 18 May 2013 meeting, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution to commission a study to identify the levels of potential impact posed by each applied-for new gTLD on the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS. The study, "Name Collision in the DNS," together with a proposal to manage the risks identified in the study, was published for public comment from 5 August 2013 to 17 September 2013. During the public comment period, 75 comments were received. Based on the public comments, staff updated the proposal to manage the risks identified in the study. The report of these public comments is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-05aug13/. The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 28 September 2013< http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-28sep13…> to review and discuss a proposal on how to deal with name collisions. On 7 October 2013< http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-07oct13…>, the NGPC met again and approved an updated proposal, titled "New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan< http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1…>," [PDF, 840 KB] to mitigate the risks of potential name collisions caused by the introduction of new gTLDs. The Collision Occurrence Management Plan directs staff to undertake an additional study to develop a name collision occurrence management framework. The framework will include appropriate parameters and processes to assess both probability and severity of harm resulting from the occurrence of name collisions. Examples of the parameters might include number of DNS requests, type of DNS requests, type of queries, diversity of query source and appearances in internal name certificates. The framework will specify a set of collision occurrence assessments and corresponding mitigation measures, if any, that ICANN or TLD applicants may need to implement per second level domain name (SLD) seen in the "day in the life of the Internet" (DITL) dataset. Additionally, the plan provides a registry operator with the option to proceed to delegation prior to receiving its SLD collision occurrence assessment report (subject to established processes and procedures). If the registry operator chooses this alternative path to delegation, it must initially block all SLDs that appear in the DITL dataset while the assessment is conducted. An additional feature of the plan requires establishment of a process by each TLD operator to enable an affected party(ies) to report and request the blocking of an SLD that causes demonstrably severe harm as a consequence of name collision occurrences. This process is intended to mitigate the risk that collision occurrences from additional SLDs not observed in the study dataset could have severe impact. The plan also includes an outreach campaign targeted to potentially affected parties to help them identify and manage the origins (causes) of name collision occurrences in their networks. As part of the outreach campaign, ICANN, under the direction of the President and CEO, will invite and collaborate with relevant parties and members of the community that share the same interest in making progress in this issue. At its 7 October meeting, the NGPC also recommended to the ICANN Board that the issue of name collisions be monitored by the Board's Risk Committee and reviewed periodically, and that ICANN work with the community in developing a long-term plan to retain and measure root-server data. For more information about the NGPC, please visit: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld. _______________________________________________ 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 4

New Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

It is with pleasure and relief that I note that with the passage of the Adjunct Document on the At-Large Board Member Selection, the new Rules of Procedure (RoP) are now officially in effect. The RoP and associated documents can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rules+of+Procedure. Alan

10 10

Fwd: Re: [soac-discussion] ICANN/SO-AC LEADERS Brainstorming Collaboration
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] ICANN/SO-AC LEADERS Brainstorming Collaboration Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 03:50:44 +0400 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> CC: Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org>, "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> Filed under Ref. AL-ALAC-CO-1013-01-00-EN Dear David, The At-Large Community has discussed the outcome of the ICANN/SO-AC Leaders Collaborative Brainstorming Conference Call and the proposals for the Buenos Aires meeting which have been suggested on the SO/AC mailing list. We issued a formal call for comments to our members and received a comprehensive response. On the whole, our community welcomed the SO/AC cross-constituency session on Monday afternoon. As a supporter of "breaking down the silos", the ALAC can only applaud the reinstatement of such a session, noting that it has issued Statements in the past that have asked precisely for its reinstatement. Some members were not too keen on the selection of subjects, especially the "policy vs. implementation" topic which is already the subject of a GNSO working group. The "Public Interest Commitment (PIC) issues" was more welcome -- with the ALAC having already expressed its position strongly on this topic. Our community has not been as welcoming for moving the public forum to Thursday morning. It was indeed understood that moving the public forum forward will only serve to make the ICANN week even shorter than it currently is. It has been customary for the ALAC to hold its wrap-up meeting on Thursday morning in order to finalise any Statement or declaration it wished to present at the afternoon Public Forum. The bringing forward of the Forum will require the ALAC to find an alternative time to work and this will undeniably affect our whole week of work. This additional shortening of the ICANN week is therefore most unwelcome. The ALAC has advocated the return of Fridays due to its community having to crunch too much work in too little time. This proposal does exactly the opposite and will trigger earlier and earlier departures thus shortening the week even further. Several ALAC members taking part in the Meetings Strategy Working Group also expressed their surprise at having been sidelined for this brainstorming call which has given rise to a proposal for Buenos Aires. Does this mean that the work that the Meetings Strategy Working Group undertook on this topic is void? Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 21/09/2013 18:54, Susie Johnson wrote: > > *E-MAIL SENT ON BEHALF OF DAVID A. OLIVE:* > > * * > > * * > > Dear SO-AC Leaders: > > > > Thanks to those of you who were able to participate in Thursday's > ICANN/SO-AC Leaders Collaborative Brainstorming Conference Call on the > Buenos Aires Meeting schedule. An overview of our discussion follows. > > > > The changes call participants agreed to pursue, with further > consultation, for the Buenos Aires Meeting schedule are: > > > > · Establishing a 90-minute, cross-constituency, subject-based > session developed and run by the SO-AC leadership team and held Monday > afternoon in the main meeting room. Initial thoughts on two potential > topics were: > > o Policy vs. Implementation, and > > o Public Interest Commitment Issues > > We would appreciate your reactions on whether or not you would support > holding this session, as well as the potential session topics to be > discussed. If you wish to proceed with this concept, the Policy team > is ready to assist you in organizing your discussions and planning for > such a session, as you deem appropriate. > > > > · Running a new gTLD (GDD) track on Monday in parallel to > high-interest topic sessions taking place in the main meeting room. > > · Moving the Public Forum from Thursday afternoon to Thursday > morning in an effort to increase attendance. > > · Adding timeslots for high-interest topics and community > sessions on Thursday afternoon. > > A suggested change that will not be implemented for Buenos Aires is a > full day of SO-AC reports to the community on Wednesday. Participants > agreed that there is not time to make significant changes to the > Tuesday and Wednesday schedules. > > > > For those of you who were unable to participate in the call, a > transcript AND chat room comments are attached. A link to an audio > recording of the call is below. > > > > Please provide your thoughts about these ideas at your earliest > convenience but no later than Monday, 7 October. We look forward to > your comments, and a continuing dialogue as we strive to improve the > ICANN Meeting experience for the community. We'll look to arrange > some specific follow-up calls to discuss the Monday afternoon session > in detail. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sally & David > > > > Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President, Global Stakeholder > Engagement > > > > David A. Olive, Vice President, Policy Development Support / General > Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -- Istanbul > > > > *Link to the audio call:* > > * * > > https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ejt11w7r63hlxoiwey7g.mp3 > > > > > > *Susie Johnson* > > Executive Assistant to > > Vice President of Policy Development > > *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)* > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, California 90094-2536 > > > > Direct: +1 310 301 3863 > > Mobile: +1 310 383 1240 > > Office: +1 310 301 5800 > > www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>__ > > > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find attached the response from the Chair of the Board new gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to our ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation: http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-09aug13-en.htm Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:15:52 -0700 From: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > >On 30/09/2013 20:34, Cherine Chalaby wrote: >> Dear Olivier, >> Please find attached the NGPC response to the ALAC Statement on >>Community >> Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation. >> Best regards, >> Cherine >> >> On 11/08/2013 15:29, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >> >>> Att: >>> Steve Crocker - ICANN Chair >>> Cherine Chalaby - Chair of the Board new gTLD Program Committee >>>Committee >>> >>> Dear Steve, >>> Dear Cherine, >>> >>> please be so kind to find attached the "ALAC Statement on Community >>> Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation". >>> >>> This Advice is provided to the Board before ALAC ratification due to >>>its >>> time sensitive nature. It should be read in conjuction with our "ALAC >>> Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in >>> String Contention", sent under separate cover. At-Large Staff will >>> confirm results of the ALAC vote when it is concluded. >>> >>> Please be so kind to confirm receipt and consideration of its contents >>> in the discussions of the Board new gTLD Program Committee. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >>> ALAC Chair > >-- >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >

6 8

Re: [ALAC] New Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 8, 2013

Oct. 8, 2013

At 08/10/2013 04:41 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 8 October 2013 16:37, Carlton Samuels ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Birthed at last! Huge credit accrue to you, the midwife, sir! > > >That's a mental picture that may give me nightmares. > >Still, congratulations to making this happen! > >- Evan Did make me cringe a bit as well. But if you have ever watched (or helped with) a calf being extracted from its mother using ropes and chains tied to its legs, and the occasional reaching in to "adjust" things, I have to admit that there WERE similarities. For those who have not had the "pleasure", see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ambH1xdKyjY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAis74df-n0. Alan (For those sensitive souls on this list, sorry for such a graphic post.)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 7, 2013

Oct. 7, 2013

I pretty well agree. Regarding FUNDED face-to-face meetings and facilitation, there will be a draft ATRT recommendation. But in my mind the most we can do on the other issues is initiate some serious study to at least understand what we would have to do if we were to get serious. Although we all understand the general issue, we need more specifics before we try to fix problems, or decide that they are out of scope for the moment. Alan At 07/10/2013 11:04 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Oh yes, saw the presentation by Emily Taylor and Mark McFadden to the ATRT2 >which did a very good job of highlighting the issues, which, by the by, are >all well-known to us. > >Seen the recommendations too, none of which are outlandish or not done >before. But the structural problems will not go away without direct >intervention and remake. And to date, there seems to be little stomach for >that. > >-Carlton > > > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Holly Raiche ><h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>wrote: > > > Hi Everyone > > > > This is from a member of the Policy and Implementation WG - with a link to > > a report I was unaware of. But it is spot on. It looks at the whole > > consultation processes - and what is wrong, viz, people's lack of time, > > English as the language, meeting times that favour the US/Europe, etc, etc. > > It makes good (if depressing) reading, with some suggestions on what should > > happen > > > > Holly > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > From: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur(a)gmail.com> > > > Date: 4 October 2013 5:13:39 AM AEST > > > To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> > > > Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org>, " > > gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] UPDATED: Attendance and Recording > > Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013 > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I would like to draw to your attention that on the wiki of the ATRT2, we > > can find a draft of the GNSO evaluation study conducted by an external > > expert. The purpose of this assignment has been to assess the > > effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy > > Development Process (PDP) and whether the current GNSO PDP process > > satisfies the needs of the multistakeholder model and Internet users. > > > > > > It looks like there might be plenty of information in it, that could be > > very relevant to the work we are doing in this WG. > > > > > > < > > > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41898277/Draft+Report+-+AT… > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Marie-laure > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Nathalie Peregrine < > > nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > With correct affiliation and added member. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Nathalie > > > > > > > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On > > Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine > > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:33 AM > > > To: gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org > > > Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org > > > Subject: [gnso-secs] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation > > WG meeting - 25th September 2013 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that the next Policy and Implementation Working Group > > teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 16th October 2013 at 1900 UTC > > for 1,5 hrs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working > > group call held on Wednesday 25th September 2013 at 20:00 UTC at: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20130925-en.mp3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On page: > > > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO > > Master Calendar page: > > > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Attendees: > > > > > > Holly Raiche ALAC > > > > > > Greg Shatan IPC > > > > > > Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC > > > > > > Wolf Knoben - ISPCP > > > > > > Chuck Gomes RySG > > > > > > Philip Marano IPC (for Brian Winterfeldt) > > > > > > Michael Graham IPC > > > > > > Olevie Kouami NPOC > > > > > > Amr Elsadr - NCUC > > > > > > Tim Ruiz RrSG > > > > > > Tom Barrett RrSG > > > > > > James Bladel RrSG > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC > > > > > > Aparna Sridhar BC > > > > > > Maureen Cubberley Individual > > > > > > Avri Doria NCSG > > > > > > Alan Greenberg ALAC > > > > > > Gideon Rop Individual > > > > > > Klaus Stoll NPOC > > > > > > J.Scott Evans BC > > > > > > Eric Brunner-Williams > > > > > > Marie-Laure Lemineur NPOC > > > > > > David Cake - NCUC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apology: > > > > > > Nic Steinbach RrSG > > > > > > Kiran Malancharuvil IPC > > > > > > Kristine Rosette IPC > > > > > > Olga Cavalli - GAC > > > > > > Krista Papac > > > > > > > > > > > > ICANN staff: > > > > > > Marika Konings > > > > > > Lars Hoffman > > > > > > Glen de St Gery > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine > > > > > > > > > > > > ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine > > > > > > For GNSO Secretariat > > > > > > > > > > > > Adobe Chat Transcript for Monday 25th September 2013: > > > > > > Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG Meeting of 25 > > September 2013 > > > > > > Gideon Rop:Thank you Marika > > > > > > Michael R Graham:Thanks, Marika. Sorry about the e-mail hassles! > > > > > > maureen cubberley:thanks Maria. > > > > > > maureen cubberley:typo! Thanks Marika > > > > > > Holly Raiche:Thanks Marika > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Holly, the operator is dialling out to you > > now, didn't want the 35 min early wake up call like last week > > > > > > Holly Raiche:Thanks Natalie > > > > > > Marika Konings:@Michael - no worries, I hope we have got it right now > > ;-) > > > > > > J. Scott:I am with operator now > > > > > > ebw:howdy all. > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Please mute speakers, AC room mikes and phones > > > > > > maureen cubberley:Marika, I do not think my audio is working. can we > > test? if there is a problem, I will dial in. thanks. MC > > > > > > Marika Konings: Feel free to speak up > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:Dialing in now. > > > > > > Marika Konings:we can test in that way ;-) > > > > > > maureen cubberley:it does not appear to be working. i will dial in. > > thanks. > > > > > > Greg Shatan:Greg Shatan joining... > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the call > > > > > > Marika Konings:It was for the sub-team - I can put it up if you like? > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:Apologies about being late. Dialling in now. > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Wolf Knoben has joined the AC room > > > > > > Wolf Knoben:Hi, I got it > > > > > > Greg Shatan:Hope we are not barking up the wrong tree.... > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:Now on the call. :) > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:lol > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:back in audio bridge as well > > > > > > Marika Konings:@Michael - the doodle poll was sent out earlier today. > > Maybe you can double check you received that message with all the email > > issues we've had ;-) > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:No doodle has shown up here. > > > > > > Marika Konings:it was at the bottom of the email summarizing the > > discussions of yesterday > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:Alan..., the doodle's on the sub-team list. Sent earlier > > today. You didn't get it? > > > > > > Marika Konings:did anyone of the sub-team receive it? > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:I did. > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:I was looking for the word "doodle" anywher, but will > > check. > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:It's there and my search didn't catch it. One more > > think to look into! > > > > > > Marika Konings:doodle was in the title though ;-) > > > > > > Phil Marano:For the roll call, please note that I am also covering for > > Brian Winterfeldt. Thank you. > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:Oh great. a double problem. > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Thank you Phil, noted > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Tim Ruiz will be joining late > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Nathalie I thought mute on this provider was still > > *6? > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:no Cheryl, it's *4 and *4 to unmute > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:*shigh* thanks > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:no point in switching phoines so I can mute and > > then not doing it > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:The good thing about standards is that you can have so > > many of them. > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:LOL > > > > > > Holly Raiche:I have seen the fulsome report - but not a doodle > > > > > > Michael R Graham:I have not seen the doodle request yet. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:who decides if an issue is intended to be a > > consensus policy? > > > > > > Holly Raiche:I think that is something that is part of what we will > > look at > > > > > > Michael R Graham:@Alan: I've rarely seen such cynicism combined with > > such optimism! > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:If you mean "Consensus Policy" (with upper case C and > > P, that is a defined term which is a policy that once approved and > > implmented, immediately alters registrar and/or registry contracts. What a > > CP can be about is delineating in detail in the respective contracts. > > > > > > Mary Wong:@Tom, did you mean Consensus Policy (binding on Registries > > and Registrars) or other consensus policies? > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:@Michael, actualy was meant not so much as cynicism or > > optimism but as pragmatism! > > > > > > Holly Raiche:Again, isn't this part of what is before this group > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Mary what other CP are there? (if not > > binding on contracted parties?) > > > > > > Mary Wong:@Alan, thanks. Yes, Consensus Policies constitute a defined > > term; in ICANN parlance that's usually what's considered as within the > > "picket fence". > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Holly,what is not part of what before this > > group? > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:Lower case cp would be a policy that was arrived at by > > consensus. In the context of what Marika was discussing, if we use some > > other process to arrive at a poolicy decision, that could be a consensus > > policy. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@holly..never mind, I misread your comment. > > > > > > Holly Raiche:That's the hard question. If something is a consensus > > policy - as defined, then there is a clear process required. But is there > > something tht is consensus that doesn't require a PDP. Not sure > > > > > > Mary Wong:@Alan, thanks again. > > > > > > Mary Wong:To add: it's important to remember also that GNSO Working > > Groups make their recommendations according to a varying set of consensus > > levels (each defined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), ranging from > > Full Consensus to No Consensus. > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:Olevie Kouami has joined the audio bridge > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Alan..can you give examples of policies that > > used some other process but is still considered a consensus policy? > > > > > > ebw:proposed policy, for which there is consensus within the gnso-c, > > and possibly other parties, not necessarily pertaining to a currently > > contracted party,e.g., prospective contracted parties, may be (lower case) > > "consensus policy" > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:can you provide some examples? > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:What we are currently calling the implementation phase! > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:someone needs mute > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:what I mean is this: what policies would we > > have that is not binding on contracted parties? > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:are there optional policies? > > > > > > Mary Wong:@Tom, at its broadest a "consensus policy" (no caps) can be > > a policy that is approved and adopted by the ICANN Board as a result of > > community consensus around the policy recommendation in question. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:can it be optional? > > > > > > Mary Wong:It is possible (though unlikely, from experience) that a > > policy will be adopted where there was NO consensus from the community on > > it. > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:It could be a policy directing what ICANN should do in > > some case. > > > > > > Holly Raiche:Maybe one test is whether the resultant 'policy' is > > required > > > > > > ebw:well, an example may be idn variants. there is a consensus policy, > > but implementation is optional (a registry may use just ASCII). > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:Perhaps best case is the new gTLD policy which has > > resulted in the entire new gTLD program. It was a GNSO policy that did not > > impact existing contracts. > > > > > > ebw:+1 > > > > > > ebw:idn policy does not impact ASCII-only registries and their > > registrars. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:who is "ebw" pplease > > > > > > ebw:eric brunner-williams. you know me. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:hi eric > > > > > > ebw:howdy tom > > > > > > Mary Wong:The PDP process is robust; once something is characterized > > as "policy" the various stages and procedures are pretty clear, from Issue > > Report to Consensus levels. The problem may arise at either end: agreeing > > that something is or is not "policy", or determining when a policy, once > > adopted, continues to raise further policy questions or is "pure" > > implementation. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:agreed > > > > > > Mary Wong:(To clarify: I'm referring to the GNSO PDP). > > > > > > Michael R Graham:Points of concern are "when appropriate" and "as > > deemed appropriate" -- my concern is who determines whether appropriate. > > IRT should be participants in the PDP in order to ensure that presumptions > > and intent of PDP are clear and carried out. > > > > > > Michael R Graham:Which echoes Mary's comments about primary issues > > perhaps coming at beginning and end of PDP. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:+1 > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Congratulations team USA the Americas Cup was > > well won indeed (an aside yes I know) > > > > > > Mary Wong:The IRT for the TMCH etc. was formed at the direction of the > > Board in 2009. > > > > > > Michael R Graham:But a much appreciated aside. > > > > > > Bladel:Hard to hear J Scott > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:speak up J Scott > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:better thanks J Scott > > > > > > Mary Wong:That was an advisory group made up of volunteers. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:volunteers selected by icann > > > > > > Mary Wong:(assuming Anne is referring to the technical implementation > > group for the TMCH. As Marika says, that wasn't a GNSO Council initiative). > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:icann reached out to specific individuals. > > there was no call for volunteers > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:LOL > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:you got that right Chuck > > > > > > J. Scott:that is what I meant Alan. thanks for the clarification > > > > > > ebw:alan's statement is consistent with my memory of policy work in > > 2009. > > > > > > Greg Shatan:@Cheryl: Amazing. Fantastic. Incredible. A comeback > > for the ages. Running out to buy my own 72 foot cat now. > > > > > > Michael R Graham:Going off topic: This "reaching out" to particular > > participants appears to be in the course of being repeated in the 5 Expert > > Panels annouonced in Durban. > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:they're just "volunteers" > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@Greg quite a race (hubby is a retired sailor he > > stayed home late from work to watch) :-) > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:That was me clapping. :) > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:I believe it was ICANN staff initiated > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:(ceo) > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Indeed I doubt it would be a model for us to look > > to > > > > > > Holly Raiche:It is an issue in so far as it is a process we could look > > at - Why notlook at - as an example of what not to do > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and as has been pointed out answering our Charter > > questions is the point for us to focus on IF it was a desirable model > > then it might have been worth a review > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:J. Scott. What process is required to update > > the process Marika described? > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:i entered it vai chat > > > > > > maureen cubberley:thanks for the excellent presentation Marika. > > > > > > Marika Konings:You are welcome - if there are any further questions > > that may arise as you review the materials, please let me know. > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:All the documents are on the background documents page of > > the WG wiki. > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:all good thsnks J Scott > > > > > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:thanks Marika > > > > > > Alan Greenberg:The TMCH implementation group, although was successful > > for that purpose was formed because ICANN staff had been ignoring > > contracted party implementation concerns with the TMCH, and that group went > > on to discuss other thngs. > > > > > > Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thks Marika, very good as usual :) > > > > > > Michael R Graham:Sorry - my phone is off. One thing: between now and > > October 16, the subgroup may ask the group for input to our work. > > > > > > Nathalie Peregrine:of course1 > > > > > > Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thank you all. > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all until Oct 16 1900 UTC > > > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think the TMCH is part of understanding the > > overall territory per the chart. It actually happend > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye a;ll > > > > > > Mary Wong:Thanks andb bye! > > > > > > Amr Elsadr:Bye. > > > > > > Greg Shatan:Bye > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013
by Holly Raiche Oct. 7, 2013

Oct. 7, 2013

Hi Everyone This is from a member of the Policy and Implementation WG - with a link to a report I was unaware of. But it is spot on. It looks at the whole consultation processes - and what is wrong, viz, people's lack of time, English as the language, meeting times that favour the US/Europe, etc, etc. It makes good (if depressing) reading, with some suggestions on what should happen Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur(a)gmail.com> > Date: 4 October 2013 5:13:39 AM AEST > To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> > Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] UPDATED: Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013 > > Dear all, > > I would like to draw to your attention that on the wiki of the ATRT2, we can find a draft of the GNSO evaluation study conducted by an external expert. The purpose of this assignment has been to assess the effectiveness of ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and whether the current GNSO PDP process satisfies the needs of the multistakeholder model and Internet users. > > It looks like there might be plenty of information in it, that could be very relevant to the work we are doing in this WG. > > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41898277/Draft+Report+-+AT…> > > > Best regards, > > Marie-laure > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: > With correct affiliation and added member. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Nathalie > > > > From: owner-gnso-secs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:33 AM > To: gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org > Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-secs] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 25th September 2013 > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please note that the next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 16th October 2013 at 1900 UTC for 1,5 hrs. > > > > Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group call held on Wednesday 25th September 2013 at 20:00 UTC at: > > > > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20130925-en.mp3 > > > > > > On page: > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep > > > > > > The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: > > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ > > > > Attendees: > > Holly Raiche – ALAC > > Greg Shatan – IPC > > Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC > > Wolf Knoben - ISPCP > > Chuck Gomes – RySG > > Philip Marano – IPC (for Brian Winterfeldt) > > Michael Graham – IPC > > Olevie Kouami – NPOC > > Amr Elsadr - NCUC > > Tim Ruiz – RrSG > > Tom Barrett – RrSG > > James Bladel – RrSG > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC > > Aparna Sridhar – BC > > Maureen Cubberley – Individual > > Avri Doria – NCSG > > Alan Greenberg – ALAC > > Gideon Rop – Individual > > Klaus Stoll – NPOC > > J.Scott Evans – BC > > Eric Brunner-Williams – > > Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC > > David Cake - NCUC > > > > > > > > Apology: > > Nic Steinbach – RrSG > > Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC > > Kristine Rosette – IPC > > Olga Cavalli - GAC > > Krista Papac > > > > ICANN staff: > > Marika Konings > > Lars Hoffman > > Glen de St Gery > > Nathalie Peregrine > > > > ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** > > > > > > Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag > > > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Nathalie Peregrine > > For GNSO Secretariat > > > > Adobe Chat Transcript for Monday 25th September 2013: > > Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG Meeting of 25 September 2013 > > Gideon Rop:Thank you Marika > > Michael R Graham:Thanks, Marika. Sorry about the e-mail hassles! > > maureen cubberley:thanks Maria. > > maureen cubberley:typo! Thanks Marika > > Holly Raiche:Thanks Marika > > Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Holly, the operator is dialling out to you now, didn't want the 35 min early wake up call like last week > > Holly Raiche:Thanks Natalie > > Marika Konings:@Michael - no worries, I hope we have got it right now ;-) > > J. Scott:I am with operator now > > ebw:howdy all. > > Nathalie Peregrine:Please mute speakers, AC room mikes and phones > > maureen cubberley:Marika, I do not think my audio is working. can we test? if there is a problem, I will dial in. thanks. MC > > Marika Konings: Feel free to speak up > > Alan Greenberg:Dialing in now. > > Marika Konings:we can test in that way ;-) > > maureen cubberley:it does not appear to be working. i will dial in. thanks. > > Greg Shatan:Greg Shatan joining... > > Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the call > > Marika Konings:It was for the sub-team - I can put it up if you like? > > Amr Elsadr:Apologies about being late. Dialling in now. > > Nathalie Peregrine:Wolf Knoben has joined the AC room > > Wolf Knoben:Hi, I got it > > Greg Shatan:Hope we are not barking up the wrong tree.... > > Amr Elsadr:Now on the call. :) > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:lol > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:back in audio bridge as well > > Marika Konings:@Michael - the doodle poll was sent out earlier today. Maybe you can double check you received that message with all the email issues we've had ;-) > > Alan Greenberg:No doodle has shown up here. > > Marika Konings:it was at the bottom of the email summarizing the discussions of yesterday > > Amr Elsadr:Alan..., the doodle's on the sub-team list. Sent earlier today. You didn't get it? > > Marika Konings:did anyone of the sub-team receive it? > > Amr Elsadr:I did. > > Alan Greenberg:I was looking for the word "doodle" anywher, but will check. > > Alan Greenberg:It's there and my search didn't catch it. One more think to look into! > > Marika Konings:doodle was in the title though ;-) > > Phil Marano:For the roll call, please note that I am also covering for Brian Winterfeldt. Thank you. > > Alan Greenberg:Oh great. a double problem. > > Nathalie Peregrine:Thank you Phil, noted > > Nathalie Peregrine:Tim Ruiz will be joining late > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Nathalie I thought mute on this provider was still *6? > > Nathalie Peregrine:no Cheryl, it's *4 and *4 to unmute > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:*shigh* thanks > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:no point in switching phoines so I can mute and then not doing it > > Alan Greenberg:The good thing about standards is that you can have so many of them. > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:LOL > > Holly Raiche:I have seen the fulsome report - but not a doodle > > Michael R Graham:I have not seen the doodle request yet. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:who decides if an issue is intended to be a consensus policy? > > Holly Raiche:I think that is something that is part of what we will look at > > Michael R Graham:@Alan: I've rarely seen such cynicism combined with such optimism! > > Alan Greenberg:If you mean "Consensus Policy" (with upper case C and P, that is a defined term which is a policy that once approved and implmented, immediately alters registrar and/or registry contracts. What a CP can be about is delineating in detail in the respective contracts. > > Mary Wong:@Tom, did you mean Consensus Policy (binding on Registries and Registrars) or other consensus policies? > > Alan Greenberg:@Michael, actualy was meant not so much as cynicism or optimism but as pragmatism! > > Holly Raiche:Again, isn't this part of what is before this group > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Mary what other CP are there? (if not binding on contracted parties?) > > Mary Wong:@Alan, thanks. Yes, Consensus Policies constitute a defined term; in ICANN parlance that's usually what's considered as within the "picket fence". > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Holly,what is not part of what before this group? > > Alan Greenberg:Lower case cp would be a policy that was arrived at by consensus. In the context of what Marika was discussing, if we use some other process to arrive at a poolicy decision, that could be a consensus policy. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@holly..never mind, I misread your comment. > > Holly Raiche:That's the hard question. If something is a consensus policy - as defined, then there is a clear process required. But is there something tht is consensus that doesn't require a PDP. Not sure > > Mary Wong:@Alan, thanks again. > > Mary Wong:To add: it's important to remember also that GNSO Working Groups make their recommendations according to a varying set of consensus levels (each defined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), ranging from Full Consensus to No Consensus. > > Nathalie Peregrine:Olevie Kouami has joined the audio bridge > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:@Alan..can you give examples of policies that used some other process but is still considered a consensus policy? > > ebw:proposed policy, for which there is consensus within the gnso-c, and possibly other parties, not necessarily pertaining to a currently contracted party,e.g., prospective contracted parties, may be (lower case) "consensus policy" > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:can you provide some examples? > > Alan Greenberg:What we are currently calling the implementation phase! > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:someone needs mute > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:what I mean is this: what policies would we have that is not binding on contracted parties? > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:are there optional policies? > > Mary Wong:@Tom, at its broadest a "consensus policy" (no caps) can be a policy that is approved and adopted by the ICANN Board as a result of community consensus around the policy recommendation in question. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:can it be optional? > > Mary Wong:It is possible (though unlikely, from experience) that a policy will be adopted where there was NO consensus from the community on it. > > Alan Greenberg:It could be a policy directing what ICANN should do in some case. > > Holly Raiche:Maybe one test is whether the resultant 'policy' is required > > ebw:well, an example may be idn variants. there is a consensus policy, but implementation is optional (a registry may use just ASCII). > > Alan Greenberg:Perhaps best case is the new gTLD policy which has resulted in the entire new gTLD program. It was a GNSO policy that did not impact existing contracts. > > ebw:+1 > > ebw:idn policy does not impact ASCII-only registries and their registrars. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:who is "ebw" pplease > > ebw:eric brunner-williams. you know me. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:hi eric > > ebw:howdy tom > > Mary Wong:The PDP process is robust; once something is characterized as "policy" the various stages and procedures are pretty clear, from Issue Report to Consensus levels. The problem may arise at either end: agreeing that something is or is not "policy", or determining when a policy, once adopted, continues to raise further policy questions or is "pure" implementation. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:agreed > > Mary Wong:(To clarify: I'm referring to the GNSO PDP). > > Michael R Graham:Points of concern are "when appropriate" and "as deemed appropriate" -- my concern is who determines whether appropriate. IRT should be participants in the PDP in order to ensure that presumptions and intent of PDP are clear and carried out. > > Michael R Graham:Which echoes Mary's comments about primary issues perhaps coming at beginning and end of PDP. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:+1 > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Congratulations team USA the Americas Cup was well won indeed (an aside yes I know) > > Mary Wong:The IRT for the TMCH etc. was formed at the direction of the Board in 2009. > > Michael R Graham:But a much appreciated aside. > > Bladel:Hard to hear J Scott > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:speak up J Scott > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:better thanks J Scott > > Mary Wong:That was an advisory group made up of volunteers. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:volunteers selected by icann > > Mary Wong:(assuming Anne is referring to the technical implementation group for the TMCH. As Marika says, that wasn't a GNSO Council initiative). > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:icann reached out to specific individuals. there was no call for volunteers > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:LOL > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:you got that right Chuck > > J. Scott:that is what I meant Alan. thanks for the clarification > > ebw:alan's statement is consistent with my memory of policy work in 2009. > > Greg Shatan:@Cheryl: Amazing. Fantastic. Incredible. A comeback for the ages. Running out to buy my own 72 foot cat now. > > Michael R Graham:Going off topic: This "reaching out" to particular participants appears to be in the course of being repeated in the 5 Expert Panels annouonced in Durban. > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:they're just "volunteers" > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@Greg quite a race (hubby is a retired sailor he stayed home late from work to watch) :-) > > Amr Elsadr:That was me clapping. :) > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:I believe it was ICANN staff initiated > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:(ceo) > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Indeed I doubt it would be a model for us to look to > > Holly Raiche:It is an issue in so far as it is a process we could look at - Why notlook at - as an example of what not to do > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and as has been pointed out answering our Charter questions is the point for us to focus on IF it was a desirable model then it might have been worth a review > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:J. Scott. What process is required to update the process Marika described? > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:i entered it vai chat > > maureen cubberley:thanks for the excellent presentation Marika. > > Marika Konings:You are welcome - if there are any further questions that may arise as you review the materials, please let me know. > > Amr Elsadr:All the documents are on the background documents page of the WG wiki. > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:all good thsnks J Scott > > EnCirca - Tom Barrett:thanks Marika > > Alan Greenberg:The TMCH implementation group, although was successful for that purpose was formed because ICANN staff had been ignoring contracted party implementation concerns with the TMCH, and that group went on to discuss other thngs. > > Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thks Marika, very good as usual :) > > Michael R Graham:Sorry - my phone is off. One thing: between now and October 16, the subgroup may ask the group for input to our work. > > Nathalie Peregrine:of course1 > > Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thank you all. > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye all until Oct 16 1900 UTC > > Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think the TMCH is part of understanding the overall territory per the chart. It actually happend > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye a;ll > > Mary Wong:Thanks andb bye! > > Amr Elsadr:Bye. > > Greg Shatan:Bye > > > >

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 6, 2013

Oct. 6, 2013

Hear, hear, Holly. I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention: 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers? 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same. 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session). The fight over time slots seems intense - you wouldn't believe how many sessions the IDN WG session overlaps with (as an example of a struggle for time and people). As I recalled, it clashes with capacity building, Atlas II and some other things, and that is just within the community, not even factoring external activities. Rinalia On Oct 4, 2013 7:24 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > I guess it is my turn. > > One of my real objections to the proposed and Sally led meeting Monday > afternoon is that we were planning a third multi stakeholder forum - this > time on the new gTLDs - to have a hard look at the many many issues that we > have raised and finally ask is there anything that can be done. That > includes PICS, it includes the metrics, it includes the totally nonsensical > rulings on con/can and the singular plural issue, and the IP issues, and > the issues of applicant support. In the end, it is a litany of quick fixes > that have not fixed. So maybe time to say so, rather than object to each > issue individually. > > That said, yes, the PICS were an add on, largely at the GAC request that, > if people say they are going to do something, then they should do it. But > enforcing it after the fact has proved - not surprisingly - very > problematic. Another issue with the gTLDs gone bad. > > Maybe the multi stakeholder forum - if it is held - could be titled what > is right with the new gTLDs. It would be a very short session. > > Holly > > > On 04/10/2013, at 7:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > Now it is my turn to ++1 Carlton :-) > > > > The process is stacked to the advantage of registries, to the > disadvantage > > of registrants who much pay for the system, and heavily against > > non-registrant end-users who see the promises coming undone. > > > > Most unnerving is the explicit references to "repeat offenders", which > IMO > > is deliberately targeting potential watchdog groups that would object on > > public interest grounds. > > > > The process for creating PICs was shaky enough. The process for enforcing > > them is a sham, designed for public relations value without actually > > providing significant public benefit. Like Applicantg Support and the > > public (ALAC/Ombudsman) Objection process, they are complex in design and > > will see next to no use. > > > > The problems are embedded and cultural, no amount of tweaking will fix > this. > > > > Does the ALAC have the courage to point out this program's utter failure > to > > the Board? > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > On 3 October 2013 12:14, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> So, the PICDRP is revised. Yawn. > >> > >> For sure, it is a poster child for what lawyers call - often times with > >> tongue firmly rooted in cheek - 'due process'. Regrettably and in > IMMHO, it > >> yet remains a creature that is all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. > >> Yes, in the end, it is still not worth a warm bucket of spit. > >> > >> The fundamental problem remains; it is a high bar we raise to deny > >> companies the right to change a business model - or approach to > >> implementing a model - in process. That is a flightless buzzard of a > bird. > >> > >> The notion of 'to report is to offend' remains. Now, I freely admit > that as > >> a free thinker, all orthodoxies remain suspect absent they are forced > thru > >> the crucible of reason. But this position as a conceptual framework is > and > >> remains so injurious to perceptions of good governance it is practically > >> indecent! > >> > >> I have excerpted and highlighted a part of the revised procedure below. > It > >> frames what follows better than I could; it is as if ICANN had engaged a > >> circular firing squad to execute PIC enforcement: > >> > >> *"1.3 .....ICANN will conduct a preliminary review of the PIC report to > >> ensure that it is complete and states a claim of non-compliance with > one or > >> more PICs. ICANN also will make a determination as to* > >> *PICDRP- 2* > >> *whether the Reporter is in good standing and is not a Repeat Offender > as > >> set forth below in Section 5. * > >> * > >> * > >> *ICANN’s preliminary review is not intended to evaluate the merits of > the > >> allegations, but whether the Reporter has completed all of the reporting > >> obligations.* > >> * > >> * > >> *In particular, ICANN will review whether the Reporter has: (i) > identified > >> the proper parties; (ii) identified at least one PIC with which the > >> Registry Operator failed to comply, (iii) alleged how the Reporter has > been > >> harmed; and (iv) set forth the grounds of the claim and submitted > >> appropriate documentation to support the report of non-compliance.* > >> * > >> * > >> *1.4** If the PIC report fails the preliminary review, ICANN will notify > >> the Reporter and the Registry Operator, and **the PIC report will be > >> closed. > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> *2. Initial Review of the PIC Report and Conference* > >> *2.1 If the PIC report passes ICANN’s preliminary review, ICANN will > >> forward the report to the Registry Operator (through its Abuse Point of > >> Contact) and notify the Reporter that the PIC report has been forwarded > to > >> the Registry Operator.*" > >> > >> -Carlton > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Carlton A Samuels > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> ============================= > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Registrants-rights mailing list > >> Registrants-rights(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights > >> > >> WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > _______________________________________________ > > Registrants-rights mailing list > > Registrants-rights(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights > > > > WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

6 10