December 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group: LACRALO Statement
by Fatima Cambronero Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

Dear Rinalia and all, LACRALO have discussed the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group and we have prepared a statement which I included in the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Proposed+Bylaws+… We hope ALAC can discuss this draft and can adopt it as ALAC statement. I am available to clarify any doubt. Thank you. Best Regards, Fatima -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/

4 4

Fwd: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

Dear all, FYI -- just to keep you updated, after the ALAC met with the NCSG, Evan Leibovitch announced during the public forum the creation of a joint effort by both communities to work together to prepare for the Brazil meeting etc. David Olive picked this up and discussed it with the ALAC Leadership Team on the Friday of the ICANN week. He then shared the fact that this effort was open for every SO/AC to join, on the SO/AC Leadership mailing list. The responses were quick to ask "how do we join this?" and from here onwards, Rafik & I have worked with several people to get the train rolling. The update below will give you an idea where we are at the moment. I am not sure whether this was the original intent since I recall that we probably thought during the ALAC/NCSG meeting that things would start small & grow slowly once we had a few position papers on the WIKI but I guess that with the Brazil meeting only a few months away and with the Festive Season about to arrive, many felt we needed to act quickly. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:50:18 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> CC: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org>, "Tracy Hackshaw (Tracy.Hackshaw(a)gov.tt)" <Tracy.Hackshaw(a)gov.tt>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Hello all, just a quick update since the last emails on this thread. Last week's action items were: On 29/11/2013 01:26, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Right now, practical matters shows a need to: > 1. populate the common WIKI space which has been created by Staff on > https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/ICANN+Community+Preparation+for+t… > 2. create at least 1 mailing list for discussion so as to free the > SOAC mailing list from discussion about this matter and not need to CC > more and more people > 3. consider creating a 2nd mailing list for the coordinators, should > there be at least one from each SO/AC/SG This is just to let you know that things are taking shape. Sally Costerton's GSE department is working on allocating Staff support for this effort. The WIKI space referenced above will be open for all with a log-in to be able to use. I gather that it will soon take shape with help from Staff & members of the community. 2 mailing lists are being created by Staff. One mailing list will be open to all wishing to take part in the CCWG. Completely open etc. One mailing list will be closed & used for admin purposes solely by the coordinators & future chairs of this CCWG. I have suggested this model as it is the one that was used by the DSSA WG. Populating the open mailing list ASAP will allow us to take the discussion over to it, rather than crowding the SOAC leadership mailing list & having a longer and longer CC' list. Rummaging through the recent threads, I have seen interest from: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC - facilitator Rafik Dammak NCSG - facilitator David Olive Staff Olof Nordling Staff Theresa Swinehart Staff Heidi Ullrich Staff Jonathan Robinson GNSO - RySG Avri Doria GNSO - NCSG Mikey O'Connor GNSO - ISPCP William Drake NCUC Cintra Sooknanan NPOC Louis Lee ASO AC Adiel A. Akplogan ASO NRO Heather Dryden GAC Tracy Hackshaw GAC Patrik Fältström SSAC Robert Guerra SSAC Evan Leibovitch ALAC León Felipe Sánchez ALAC Holly Raiche ALAC Stéphane van Gelder NomCom I have transmitted full details for the above names to the Staff member in charge of starting the mailing list. Please forgive me if I have not included your name on this list - this is hastily created from rummaging through the email thread in my mailbox that's a needle in a haystack. Self-subscription will be possible once the mailing list is up & running. Mikey O'Connor has very kindly volunteered to start work on a charter already. Rafik & I really hope that things can get in full swing before the end of the week. I realise there's going to be a lot of questioning about "what? another mailing list? for what?" Once the dust settles, I think we'll have a better idea. That's all for today. Kindest regards, Olivier

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Re: ccTLD Revocation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 5, 2013

Dec. 5, 2013

Excellent discussion on this thread. Eduardo Diaz has raised an important gap about the interpretation of RFC1591 (based on a real case), which puts into question whether or not the IANA Operator is empowered to act in cases where there is a request to revocate from a local government (backed by local law), but where there are no operational problems and no substantial misbehavior on the part of the ccTLD Operator. The gap is a valid one, and since there is concern in our community about this issue, I suggest that it be flagged as a gap in the ALAC statement to the ccNSO on revocation that requires a resolution (irrespective of the status of discussions between the GAC and the ccNSO). Hong Xue has raised an important issue on establishing a requirement for the IANA Operator to consult with local government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator. I generally think this is good practice that our community can advocate for. Noting that trust in governments can vary depending on context, I would like to ask: Are there any concerns about this? If not, I would propose adding this requirement into the ALAC statement as well. Best regards, Rinalia On Dec 5, 2013 8:24 AM, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, whether the IANA operator should, in any case, follow the > competent authority's decision, has been raised by GAC when ccNSO > presented its report on "revocation". So far both sides have yet to > work out a solution to coherently interpret how to make sure the > revocation by IANA according to the RFC 1591 consistent with the GAC > Principles. Roughly, revocation is deemed a narrow conception that > does not involve "re-delegation", which is in the sovereignty of the > government of the ccTLD territory. Then we could run into a puzzling > situation in which a revoked ccTLD operator may be re-delegated back > by the government. Who then should have the final say in this regard? > Could the (disputed) ccTLD manager appeal to the ICANN Board or sue > ICANN to the court of CA? > > To avoid the above conflict of "enforcement", I mentioned on > confluence wiki that IANA operator would better consult the local > government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator. > Otherwise, the IANA's revocation decision would either be backfired at > the ccTLD territory or cycling back and forth without finality. > > > Hong > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Eduardo Diaz > <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > As a matter of practical matter the IANA operator should follow the > > government mandate regardless of "colouration". Otherwise who is the > judge? > > > > -ed > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Carlton Samuels > > <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> On principle yes, I could agree with Eduardo. But as a practical matter, > >> 'colouration' of the government will always be an issue. > >> > >> So then as a practical matter, I am loathe to believe that a request > -for > >> example - from one of the little fellas or one of those places where the > >> cult of personality is the supreme law..or where they count the votes > >> before they are cast....should be both compelling and binding. > >> > >> -Carlton > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Carlton A Samuels > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> ============================= > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > >> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Keith, > >> > > >> > Please have a look at Eduardo's response (forwarded below), which is > >> guided > >> > by a real case. > >> > > >> > Can you kindly venture into the shades of nuance to address the > >> situation > >> > that he has highlighted? > >> > > >> > I think this discussion will be useful for the ALAC in considering its > >> > input on revocation. > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Rinalia > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > From: "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > >> > Date: Dec 2, 2013 7:12 AM > >> > Subject: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation > >> > To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > Cc: > >> > > >> > Rinalia: > >> > > > >> > > Governments may be treated as another stakeholder as far as the > >> RFC-1591 > >> > > is concerned but a government with a mandate, e.g. a "local law", to > >> > > revocate, should have more weight and standing than any other > >> > stakeholder. > >> > > So the question still stands: if a government requests a revocation > >> > without > >> > > reaching a consent with the ccTLD manager, will the IANA operator > send > >> it > >> > > back to be resolved locally? If so, the ccTLD manager has the last > >> > saying > >> > > in the whole process. The applicability of "local law" in the RFC > 1591 > >> > > should be clearly interpreted by the framework to cover cases like > >> these. > >> > > > >> > > -ed > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > >> > > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Ed, > >> > >> > >> > >> what do you think? > >> > >> > >> > >> Rinalia > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > >> From: "Keith Davidson" <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz> > >> > >> Date: Nov 22, 2013 3:26 AM > >> > >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation > >> > >> To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > >> Cc: "apralo" <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC Working > >> > List" > >> > >> <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Rinalia, all, > >> > >> > >> > >> We have discussed the concept of Governments vs other parties who > >> seek a > >> > >> revocation, and see no reason to differentiate governments from any > >> > other > >> > >> stakeholder group in this regard. In terms of the policies > outlined in > >> > >> RFC1591, governments are not accorded any special status, but > >> references > >> > >> are made to the applicability of "local law" instead. > >> > >> > >> > >> The shades of nuance of the difference, or sameness of this could > take > >> > >> quite some debate - which I am happy to entertain if you think it > >> > useful. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> > >> > >> Keith > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 22/11/2013 6:55 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Keith, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for jumping in on this issue. Can you clarify on > whether > >> the > >> > >>> WG discussed in any way how revocation should be handled if it is > >> > >>> requested by governments and if there are special criteria that > would > >> > >>> apply in such cases? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rinalia > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Nov 22, 2013 1:46 AM, "Keith Davidson" < > keith(a)internetnz.net.nz > >> > >>> <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Just as an aside, I am the Chair of the Working Group that > >> drafted > >> > >>> the Revocation document as part of the overall Framework of > >> > >>> Interpretation working group in ICANN, so if there are issues > or > >> > >>> clarifications required on this, I would be happy to discuss > with > >> > >>> folks on this list. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Cheers > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Keith > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 22/11/2013 2:09 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dear Sala, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> There is time for input, but the urgency level must be > >> > >>> maintained as the > >> > >>> ALAC is scheduled to vote on the statement on 12th > December. > >> I > >> > >>> recognize > >> > >>> that the issue affects many interested parties, which is > why > >> I > >> > >>> sent out a > >> > >>> second call for comments recently. I look forward to more > >> > input > >> > >>> on the > >> > >>> important topic of revocation from the community with > >> Maureen's > >> > >>> mobilization and coordination. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for your help. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rinalia > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Nov 21, 2013 8:48 PM, "Sala T" <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu > >> > >>> <mailto:sala@pasifikanexus.nu>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dear Rinalia, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for this. Since this first came out, I had > sent > >> > it > >> > >>> to the region > >> > >>> and also to the Regulators, ccTLD managers and > Government > >> > >>> Policy makers. I > >> > >>> had a meeting with Pacific Regional Regulators > Resource > >> > >>> Center which is a > >> > >>> unit comprising all the Regulators and Policy makers. > >> Some > >> > >>> of them are also > >> > >>> members of ALSes in the Pacific. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> There was overwhelming response that they were busy > with > >> > >>> Plenipotentiary > >> > >>> preparations. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I will be having another meeting with some of them for > >> the > >> > >>> purpose of > >> > >>> feeding into the process and hopefully by > crowd-sourcing > >> > >>> where there are > >> > >>> geographical challenges. I will work with Maureen to > feed > >> > >>> this into the > >> > >>> wiki etc. This may involve having a specific webinar > and > >> > >>> will brief Maureen > >> > >>> and get her to take the lead on this as she is ALAC > and > >> > >>> ccNSO liaison. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Please give us time to put submissions in. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best Regards, > >> > >>> Sala > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim > < > >> > >>> > >> > >>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com > >> > >>> <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dear At-Large Colleagues, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The ALAC is preparing a statement on the topic of > >> ccTLD > >> > >>> "revocation", > >> > >>> > >> > >>> which > >> > >>> > >> > >>> refers to a process where the IANA Operator > rescinds > >> > the > >> > >>> responsibility > >> > >>> > >> > >>> for > >> > >>> > >> > >>> the management of a ccTLD from the manager. In > such > >> a > >> > >>> situation, a > >> > >>> > >> > >>> country > >> > >>> > >> > >>> code Top Level Domain will be re-delegated without > >> the > >> > >>> consent of the > >> > >>> incumbent ccTLD manager in cases where there are > >> > >>> “persistent problems > >> > >>> > >> > >>> with > >> > >>> > >> > >>> the operations of the domain” and where there > >> continues > >> > >>> to be > >> > >>> > >> > >>> “substantial > >> > >>> > >> > >>> misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite > >> the > >> > >>> IANA Operator’s > >> > >>> > >> > >>> best > >> > >>> > >> > >>> efforts to stop the misconduct. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A draft statement has been prepared and is > available > >> > for > >> > >>> your > >> > >>> > >> > >>> input/comment > >> > >>> > >> > >>> on the following wikipage: > >> > >>> https://community.icann.org/__ > >> > >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=__43980716 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> <https://community.icann.org/ > >> > >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43980716> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If you have thoughts or opinions on this topic, > >> please > >> > >>> do provide your > >> > >>> input/comments on the wikipage. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rinalia > >> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org > >> > >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__ > >> > >>> org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss > >> > >>> > >> > >>> < > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac- > >> > >>> discuss> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org > >> > >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann. > >> > __org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss > >> > >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org > >> > >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann. > >> __org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss > >> > >>> > >> > >>> < > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential > >> and/or > >> > > subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > >> > > addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not > >> use, > >> > > disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this > >> email > >> > by > >> > > mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message > immediately. > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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… > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or > > subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > > addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > > disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email > by > > mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. > > _______________________________________________ > > APAC-Discuss mailing list > > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

2 1

Fwd: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 4, 2013

Dec. 4, 2013

Dear Keith, Please have a look at Eduardo's response (forwarded below), which is guided by a real case. Can you kindly venture into the shades of nuance to address the situation that he has highlighted? I think this discussion will be useful for the ALAC in considering its input on revocation. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> Date: Dec 2, 2013 7:12 AM Subject: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: Rinalia: > > Governments may be treated as another stakeholder as far as the RFC-1591 > is concerned but a government with a mandate, e.g. a "local law", to > revocate, should have more weight and standing than any other stakeholder. > So the question still stands: if a government requests a revocation without > reaching a consent with the ccTLD manager, will the IANA operator send it > back to be resolved locally? If so, the ccTLD manager has the last saying > in the whole process. The applicability of "local law" in the RFC 1591 > should be clearly interpreted by the framework to cover cases like these. > > -ed > > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ed, >> >> what do you think? >> >> Rinalia >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Keith Davidson" <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz> >> Date: Nov 22, 2013 3:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation >> To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: "apralo" <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC Working List" >> <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> Hi Rinalia, all, >> >> We have discussed the concept of Governments vs other parties who seek a >> revocation, and see no reason to differentiate governments from any other >> stakeholder group in this regard. In terms of the policies outlined in >> RFC1591, governments are not accorded any special status, but references >> are made to the applicability of "local law" instead. >> >> The shades of nuance of the difference, or sameness of this could take >> quite some debate - which I am happy to entertain if you think it useful. >> >> Cheers >> >> Keith >> >> >> On 22/11/2013 6:55 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >> >>> Keith, >>> >>> Thank you for jumping in on this issue. Can you clarify on whether the >>> WG discussed in any way how revocation should be handled if it is >>> requested by governments and if there are special criteria that would >>> apply in such cases? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rinalia >>> >>> On Nov 22, 2013 1:46 AM, "Keith Davidson" <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz >>> <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >>> >>> Just as an aside, I am the Chair of the Working Group that drafted >>> the Revocation document as part of the overall Framework of >>> Interpretation working group in ICANN, so if there are issues or >>> clarifications required on this, I would be happy to discuss with >>> folks on this list. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> On 22/11/2013 2:09 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> There is time for input, but the urgency level must be >>> maintained as the >>> ALAC is scheduled to vote on the statement on 12th December. I >>> recognize >>> that the issue affects many interested parties, which is why I >>> sent out a >>> second call for comments recently. I look forward to more input >>> on the >>> important topic of revocation from the community with Maureen's >>> mobilization and coordination. >>> >>> Thank you for your help. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rinalia >>> >>> On Nov 21, 2013 8:48 PM, "Sala T" <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu >>> <mailto:sala@pasifikanexus.nu>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Rinalia, >>> >>> Thank you for this. Since this first came out, I had sent it >>> to the region >>> and also to the Regulators, ccTLD managers and Government >>> Policy makers. I >>> had a meeting with Pacific Regional Regulators Resource >>> Center which is a >>> unit comprising all the Regulators and Policy makers. Some >>> of them are also >>> members of ALSes in the Pacific. >>> >>> There was overwhelming response that they were busy with >>> Plenipotentiary >>> preparations. >>> >>> I will be having another meeting with some of them for the >>> purpose of >>> feeding into the process and hopefully by crowd-sourcing >>> where there are >>> geographical challenges. I will work with Maureen to feed >>> this into the >>> wiki etc. This may involve having a specific webinar and >>> will brief Maureen >>> and get her to take the lead on this as she is ALAC and >>> ccNSO liaison. >>> >>> Please give us time to put submissions in. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >>> >>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear At-Large Colleagues, >>> >>> The ALAC is preparing a statement on the topic of ccTLD >>> "revocation", >>> >>> which >>> >>> refers to a process where the IANA Operator rescinds the >>> responsibility >>> >>> for >>> >>> the management of a ccTLD from the manager. In such a >>> situation, a >>> >>> country >>> >>> code Top Level Domain will be re-delegated without the >>> consent of the >>> incumbent ccTLD manager in cases where there are >>> “persistent problems >>> >>> with >>> >>> the operations of the domain” and where there continues >>> to be >>> >>> “substantial >>> >>> misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite the >>> IANA Operator’s >>> >>> best >>> >>> efforts to stop the misconduct. >>> >>> A draft statement has been prepared and is available for >>> your >>> >>> input/comment >>> >>> on the following wikipage: >>> https://community.icann.org/__ >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=__43980716 >>> >>> <https://community.icann.org/ >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43980716> >>> >>> If you have thoughts or opinions on this topic, please >>> do provide your >>> input/comments on the wikipage. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rinalia >>> _________________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__ >>> org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss >>> >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac- >>> discuss> >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> >>> >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss >>> >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> > > > -- > *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or > subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by > mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >

3 2

Panel overload
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 1, 2013

Dec. 1, 2013

I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed. - Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort) That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters). There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them. Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed. But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked. Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model. All I know right now is that: - It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying. My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

6 10