March 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting
by Alan Greenberg March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Eduardo, you are correct that this happens. And today, if sufficient people (that is 8 for a full ALAC) don't vote, then there is no decision. But when we added this "deemed present" to cover the regional representation, we lost the ability to factor in not voting in the outcome. Alan At 25/03/2013 03:03 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >Evan: > >11.4.2 establishes quorum by indicating that "...all members are deemed >to have been present". If a member does not want to participate in the >electronic vote, his/her vote will not have any balance in the final >result. For whatever reason people just do not vote sometimes. > >-ed > >On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for this work. I approve of the changes and believe they do improve > > clarity. > > > > I have one question (and apologize for the tardiness, I haven't really been > > contributing much): > > > > *11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC > > Members are deemed to have been present* > > > > I wonder if this may be problematic, in cases where an online vote > > (nominally now done by BigPulse) is held, but does not have many > > participants. If a BigPulse vote is held but does not have at least a > > quorum's worth of votes, does it still count? > > > > I would suggest choosing either of two paths: > > > > either > > > > * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC > > Members are deemed to have been present. Members who do not participate in > > the vote will be deemed to have abstained. > > * > > > > or > > > > * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, at least > > 50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote in order for the result to > > be a valid decision* > > > > > > My preference is for the second choice but I can live with either. > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 March 2013 03:52, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > > > Thank you again for the hard work. > > > > > > > > > A/ comments/questions > > > > > > 1) Does "recall" of an ALT member means that this member is no more > > > member of ALT but remains an ALAC member? > > > 2) For BCEC it is mentioned: A new BCEC will be convened for each Board > > > Seat Selection Process in 19.3. Please don't we need such precision for > > > BMSPC too? > > > > > > > > > B/ Comment > > > > > > 1) I would prefer to see also included in 12.1.15 the removal of an > > ALAC > > > member. I note that 21.2 is saying "should a vote be necessary ......" > > > > > > C/ One thought > > > > > > Could we have a situation where a chair decide to become a regular ALT or > > > ALAC member in a situation where he thinks that he could not more carry > > the > > > work load? > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > Yaovi > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > À : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Envoyé le : Lundi 25 mars 2013 6h23 > > > Objet : [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC > > > meeting > > > > > > Attached please find the Draft Rules of Procedure for discussion at the > > 26 > > > March 2013 ALAC meeting. Also attached is a redline version showing most > > of > > > the changes from the RoP discussed at the 19 March 2013 meeting. > > > > > > In addition to the changes detailed below, there are two sets of changes > > > what do not show in the redline: > > > > > > - A number of corrections to cross-references within the document. > > > - The movement of what was "10.3 Meeting Rules" to "10. Rules of the > > > ALAC". This change was not shown in the redline version since the move > > > caused all of the following paragraph numbers to be changed, making the > > > document quite confusing. > > > > > > Changes showing in the redline version: > > > > > > 1. Clarifying the status of individual members within At-large. > > > 1.2 clarification of rules used. > > > 2. Add definition of Super-majority and capitalize it where used within > > > the document. > > > 5.2 and other places: Define AAGM on first usage, and us it instead of > > AGM > > > within the document (some occurrences previously said AGM). > > > 5.6 Made reference to privileges associated only with the "ALAC Chair" > > > clearer. > > > 5.13 Replaced reference to Ombudsman with an alternative phrase taken > > from > > > the ICANN Bylaws. > > > 5.14 Added condition that only those who have at least one other ALAC > > > member supporting them can be named Chair. > > > 10.1 The section on rules was moved because it did not apply only to > > > meetings. The addition of "or activities" acknowledges this. > > > 11.4.2 Add a word that had inadvertently been omitted. > > > 11.4.4 Removal of a redundant phrase. > > > 11.2.3 Addition of rule to allow more stringent rules for motion > > adoption. > > > > > > The draft RoP can also be found at https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi. > > > > > > 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… > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. >_______________________________________________ >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

ALAC Top 10 Issues
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Dear All, Grateful if those who have been with ALAC for *long* can assist in letting me know if there is a record of Top 10 Issues in ALAC other than the one in https://community.icann.org/x/AIUi I am looking for material that may have been archived. 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 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com

3 3

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Top 10 Issues
by Alan Greenberg March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Nothing else to my recollection. Alan At 25/03/2013 08:18 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear All, > >Grateful if those who have been with ALAC for *long* can assist in letting >me know if there is a record of Top 10 Issues in ALAC other than the one in >https://community.icann.org/x/AIUi > >I am looking for material that may have been archived. > >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 >Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >_______________________________________________ >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…

2 1

ANgWG Recommendations on Post Objection-Filing Activities
by Avri Doria March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

Dear Olivier and members of ALAC, Attached please find a consensus recommendation from the At-Large New gTLD WG (ANgWG) to the ALAC on Post Objection-Filing Activities. Given the short time available for this task, due to application processing schedules, an accelerated process was used. Process by which the recommendation was developed: - It was first penned by Avri Doria, chair of the ANgWG, as a wiki document - After the Initial Draft was posted on the ANgWG list, it was the subject of a special meeting where it was word-smithed by those attending the meeting. - The final draft was then posted for a day to the ANgWG for further comments. No substantive comments were made. - A 48 hour WG last call was called. Had any substantive changes been made when fewer than 24 hours were left of this call, it would have been extended for another 24 hours. While several cosmetic changes were made based on comments, no substantive changes were suggested or made. - After the 48 hour WG last call was completed, an announcement was made to the WG list indicating the chair's belief that the document had been approved by the WG as a consensus document. Disagreement was solicited. - Two typographic errors were discovered and fixed when the PDF was being created from the Wiki page for this mailing. - 8 hours later, this note was sent to the ALAC chair and to the ALAC working group. The note is also being copied to the WG so that should anyone in the ANgWG feel that they did not have time or a chance to comment on the recommendation, or they have any other issue with the document or process, they are notified and invited to contact the ALAC directly with their issue. Regards, Avri Doria Chair, At-Large New gTLD Working Group

3 2

RUSH: Statement on ccTLD/gTLD Delegation/Redelegation Consultation
by Alan Greenberg March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation (https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg) and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg) Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page (https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg) The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it is essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly. I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience. I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed. Alan

4 3

APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues and Members of the At-Large Community, I am pleased to share with you the finalized program for the APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing (attached and pasted below). Holly Raiche and I hope that you will all attend and participate in the discussions, which will focus on end user protection related to new gTLDs and community readiness for IDN Variant TLDs. Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim Co-Chair, APRALO Beijing Organizing Committee ALAC, Executive Committee Vice Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group --- *APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable * *@ ICANN 46 [Beijing, PRC]* Date: 8 April 2013 (Monday) Time: 17:00-19:00 Meeting Room: Function Room 6 ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program will bring a dramatic expansion of the Top Level Domain Space where 1930 new gTLD applications have been received. 303 (15.7%) of the new gTLD applications are from the Asia Pacific region and 100 (86%) of the new gTLD applications for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) are for the languages of the Asia Pacific region. The APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing will feature discussions on two thematic areas related to the new gTLDs with an emphasis on issues of concern to the end user and the public interest. [17:00-18:00] Policy Roundtable I - End User Protection with New gTLDs [18:00-19:00] Policy Roundtable II - Community Readiness for IDN Variant TLDs *Policy Roundtable I **[17:00-18:00]*** Theme: New gTLDs and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific Region Topic: End User Protection with New gTLDs Discussion Questions: 1. How can end users be best protected in the event that new gTLDs fail or are unsustainable? 2. What are the issues associated with turning applicant commitments into contractual obligations? 3. What are the issues related to the enforceability of contractual obligations and what recommendations should be made regarding the scaling up of ICANN compliance? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) *Lead Discussants:* 1. End User – Jeremy Malcolm (Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International) 2. Government – Peter Nettlefold (Vice Chair, ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee & GAC Lead on New gTLDs) 3. Business – Zahid Jamil (Executive Committee Member, ICANN Business Constituency & Member, GNSO Council) 4. ICANN Compliance - Maguy Serad (Vice President, ICANN Contractual Compliance Services) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board, ICANN Legal & Law Enforcement. * * *Policy Roundtable II **[18:00-19:00]*** Theme: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific region. Topic: Community Readiness for IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) Discussion Questions: 1. Will the introduction of IDN Variant TLDs de-stabilize the Internet and undermine its security? 2. What is the level of readiness among language communities already active in ICANN in forming “Generation Panels” to propose script character repertoires and variant rules for the Root Zone that will enable variant IDN TLDs? What are the key issues in moving forward? 3. How can the readiness of language communities not yet active in ICANN be supported? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) Moderator: Edmon Chung (Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group & At-Large IDN Policy Liaison) * * *Discussants:* · Arabic Script - *Sarmad* Hussain (Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science, Pakistan) · Chinese Script – Wang Wei (China Domain Name Consortium) · Indic Script - Ram Mohan (Afilias) · Japanese Script – Hiro Hotta / Yoshiro Yonaya (Japan Registry Services) *· **Khmer Script - Norbert Klein (Internet Society Cambodia) *** *· *Korean Script - *Young*-*eum Lee (Korea National Open University)* ** *· **Sinhala Script - *Harsha Wijayawardhana (Internet Society Sri Lanka) ** · *ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee - *Jim Galvin (Deputy Chair, SSAC) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Variant Implementation Program Team, ICANN IDNA Root Label Generation Project Team Members, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Call for Comments and Input [ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation Performance Standards]
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013

Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass... Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germain to this piece of work at all. CLO from my Mobile phone On 20/03/2013 6:31 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > As you know there are few countries in the Asia Pacific that are > considering redelegation of their assigned country code top level domains > (ccTLDs). The ALAC is about to make a statement as all the various > stakeholder and constituency groups are being consulted. > > There are two documents namely:- > > > 1. Consultation on Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top > Level Domain (ccTLD) Performance > Standards< > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/cctlds/cctld-drd-performance-15jan13-en.p… > > > ; > 2. Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related > documents<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> > > > You can access these documents on https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg and > you can also see the Draft Statement which we the ALAC will soon vote on. > Should you have a position or view on these matters, please let your ALAC > members know asap: > > > 1. Holly Raiche; > 2. Rinalia Abdul Ibrahim; > 3. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > You can do so online or offline, that is offlist, whichever you are > comfortable with.Feel free to respond to this email and to the APRALO list > or offlist, whichever you prefer. > > Thank you. > > With 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 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

REMINDER/Meeting Invitation and Call for Comments - ALAC call to discuss the proposed version of their NEW Rules of Procedure (RoPs) - Tuesday, 19 March 2013 at 2100 UTC
by Heidi Ullrich March 17, 2013

March 17, 2013

When: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:00 PM-10:30 PM. GMT Standard Time Where: 2100 UTC - Adigo EN 1638, ES 1738, FR 1838 /(for the time in various time-zones click here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ALAC+meeting+for+f inal+review+of+the+revised+ROPs&iso=20130319T21> ) Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alac ** On behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Rules of Procedure Working Group, please see the important note below regarding an upcoming ALAC Meeting to review the revised ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoPs): ** Dear All, As per a previous discussion and agreement of the ALAC on 22 January 2013, the ALAC will be holding a single purpose teleconference call to discuss the proposed version of their NEW Rules of Procedure (RoPs) before a Call to Vote to Ratify and Adopt these (or not) which is to be conducted online and prior to the 46th ICANN Meeting to be held in Beijing 7-11 April 2013. This special meeting of the ALAC, which is open to all members of the At-Large Community, especially RALO Leadership and ALS members, is now announced. This call will be held on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 at 2100 UTC (2100 UTC =1400 PDT, 1700 EDT, 2200 CET, 5am Hong Kong (+1 Day) and 8am Sydney (+1 Day). The Wiki page for this meeting is found at <https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg. FR and ES interpretation has been confirmed for this meeting. All Members of the ALAC and members of the At-Large Community are requested to RSVP their attendance at this call to At-Large Staff ( <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org) indicating if they will be joining one of the interpreted channels. IMPORTANT: The 15 Members of the ALAC are encouraged to place any comments they have in the COMMENTS section of the meeting page (see: <https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/WpVwAg) or e-mail to the ALAC Working List ( <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org) particularly if they will not be able to attend this meeting. Members of the At-Large Community who wish to have any input or comments on these proposed new RoPs considered at this meeting should send these contributions to one of the ALAC Members from their Region or via email to the Chair of the Rules of Procedure Working Group, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ( <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> langdonorr(a)gmail.com) Background on these proposed new ALAC RoPs and opportunity for final ALAC review: This final version of the new ALAC RoP (see: <https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi> https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi and attached) is the product of an extensive process carried out by some 33 members of the At-Large Community (ALAC Members, formal Regional representatives as well as individual ALS and RALO members of the At-Large Community who volunteered to the ALAC Metrics and RoP Review WG(s). These volunteers have, in face-to-face and teleconference meetings of the Working Group (WG) as a whole and of the new Rules section Drafting Teams (DTs), committed well over 500 person-hours in review of the current RoPs and support material including previous versions, discussion of all rules merits, and in drafting of and editing this new Rules proposed text. A summary of who participated in the various RoP meetings can be found at: <https://community.icann.org/x/SgoQAg> https://community.icann.org/x/SgoQAg. In addition, and unfortunately difficult to measure and capture, is an extraordinary amount of time spent by the WG's Drafting Teams (DTs) leadership and section pen-holders (noting each DT was in itself, like the RoP Review WG as a whole, a deliberately regionally balanced group) and even more hours and effort again contributed by several current and previously serving ALAC Members during the final stages of integration and editing of the version you are presented with here. The majority of the ALAC has been directly involved with the Rules of Procedure WG and DTs activities and in several cases served as Leads and/or Pen-Holders for the discussion and drafting, and therefore it is unexpected and doubtful that any significant or substantial omissions or edits will be proposed for discussion either at or before the conference call. Also it is recognised that the ALAC has at its regular meetings been continually appraised of the progress of this Rules Review and also that all business of the Review WG/DTs has been done in an open and transparent manner with archives and records being held and publicly available on the relevant ALAC wiki pages. It must also be noted by the ALAC as a whole and by the wider At-Large Community in general, that virtually every concept and issue relating to these proposed new ALAC RoPs was discussed extensively, prior to any drafting, and often reviewed line by line, mostly over several visits / revisits at several meetings. Anything that was even slightly controversial or where people had differing views was debated and in virtually all cases, what has ended up in these Rules has a strong consensus of those working on the original drafting team and the final reviewers. It is also important to note that several of the 'Adjunct Documents' referred to in these new Rules are not as yet completely finalised nor have they been reviewed (as such) by the ALAC. However, they are all to be drawn from existing ALAC policy and practices and will be shortly available. The vote for the adoption of these new ALAC RoPs does not need to be delayed until they are prepared and circulated, but rather the new RoPs will not come into effect until those Adjunct Documents are all approved by the ALAC. Specific details on the ALAC vote plans and procedures relating to these new ALAC Rules will be discussed during this special ALAC meeting on 19 March 2013, but it is our hope that the vote can commence shortly after the ALAC monthly call on 26 March 2013. Regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Olivier Crepin-Leblond 11 March 2013 ** Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956

2 1

Fwd: Blog Piece on Unilateral Right to Amend
by Alan Greenberg March 17, 2013

March 17, 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:31:57 -0400 >Subject: [council] FW: Blog Piece on Unilateral Right to Amend Given the conversation we had during the GNSO Council call, I thought you may find this blog post we drafted on the Unilateral Right to Amend: <http://blog.neustar.biz/neustar-insights/clearing-up-the-logjam-time-for-ic…>http://blog.neustar.biz/neustar-insights/clearing-up-the-logjam-time-for-ic… I have printed the full version below; Clearing Up the Logjam: Time for ICANN to Drop Request for a Unilateral Right to Amend the Agreements By: Jeff Neuman A very rare thing happened in the GNSO Council meeting this weekthe ICANN community spoke with one voice. Registries, registrars, non-commercial interests, new TLD applicants, IP owners and businesses unanimously and unambiguously agreed that giving ICANN a "unilateral right to amend" the registry and registrar agreements is not compatible with ICANNs bottom-up processes and poses a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model. There is true consensus that this change should be rejected. On February 5, 2013, ICANN surprised the community by re-introducing its demand for a unilateral right to amend the gTLD Registry Agreement. ICANN made the same change in the Registrar Accreditation Agreements. (This was posted for public comment on March 7, 2013. See: <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm) This move came without consultation, nearly five years after the new gTLD Program moved into the implementation phase, and three years after the community and ICANN, through a bottom-up process, rejected this approach and reached a compromise on similar language. During the GNSO Council's monthly teleconference on March 14, 2013, while discussing the recent changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Council members raised the topic of ICANN's proposed unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements. ICANN staff present on the call explained its position, saying, "the amendment clause is actually intended to be last resort for when there is agreement that something needs to be done, but there is a logjam within the processes that we have that dont allow us to move forward." Essentially, ICANN is asking, "what happens when everyone agrees that a particular change is needed, but the multi-stakeholder processes or someone manipulating those processes - prevents the community from moving forward with what the community wants." Taken in isolation and without any other context, this is a perfectly reasonable question. If there truly were no mechanisms in the registry or registrar agreements to make necessary changes when the community demands action, then ICANN staff's concerns would be justified. It would be a good question to ask if someone could use ICANN processes to block a change that everyone else supported. The fact is, however, that there already are a number of mechanisms ICANN can take to implement community supported changes. First, of course, contracted-parties can agree to make a change they support. Second, there is a bottom-up Consensus Policy mechanism for critical changes that ensures that any implementation is appropriately balanced across multiple constituencies and stakeholder groups. Truly important and time-sensitive issues can be addressed via Temporary Policies that remain in place for up to a year and, during that year, can be adopted as Consensus Policies. Finally, the new gTLD agreement contains a new mechanism that gives ICANN authority to make amendments supported by a specific percentage of the registry operators effective across the entire registry group. This is the compromise that was developed through a bottom-up process in 2009-2010 when the community rejected the unilateral change provision. ICANN agreed in 2010 that these three mechanisms gave it the necessary tools to amend the registry contract to implement changes demanded by the community. Apparently, it has had a change of heart and now wants the authority to unilaterally impose changes to the agreements. To date, ICANNs explanation is that the introduction of new gTLDs will change things in ways that cannot be anticipated. ICANN has not responded to community requests for a concrete example of when this right would actually be needed. Of course, the ICANN world is not unique the future is inherently unknown, but parties enter into long-term contracts with high stakes all the time without introducing the kind of uncertainty that a unilateral amendment right would create. To borrow from the gTLD Registries comment made on February 26, 2013: "we are in the midst of dramatic change in the administration of the top-level domain name system. All businesses whether for profit or nonprofit - require a measure of predictability, stability and certainty of contracts. Public and multi-national company applicants are subject to regulatory regimes that cannot be reconciled with the expanded unilateral authority ICANN is seeking. In deciding whether or not to utilize new gTLDs for their critical infrastructure assets, a key goal of the new gTLD program, registries cannot be subject to the whim of one private entity, even those acting under the guise of public interest, regardless of how well-intentioned that private entity purports to be." ICANN's proposal for this new mechanism, however, has been met with opposition not only from the new gTLD Applicants and existing registries, but also the registrars, non-commercial interests, businesses and IP owners. In fact, every single comment on ICANNs last minute changes to the new gTLD registry agreement called for its removal. EVERYONE is in agreement that this is a bad idea and should be withdrawn. The fact that the entire community has never been so aligned about a particular subject speaks volumes, but despite this clarity ICANN continues to insist on a unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements, Ironically, in this case ICANN itself is creating a logjam that is preventing forward movement. By walking away from the version of the legal agreement contained in the final Applicant Guidebook, ICANN is preventing the new gTLD Program from going forward. This same issue is also the logjam preventing the roll out of a new registrar accreditation agreement containing enormous changes that would benefit registrants, law enforcement, intellectual property owners and Internet users in general. So in response to ICANNs question about clearing logjams, we think they are asking the wrong question. ICANN should stop worrying about the theoretical logjams of the future. Its time to take this request for extraordinary, unilateral power off the table in order to clear away todays very real logjam. Once this request is withdrawn, the new gTLD program can move forward and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement can be finalized.

2 1

Fwd: Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear all, For your information, this is my long-awaited report, a copy of which I have just sent to Fadi Chehadé, in a personal capacity. However, I hope that the suggestions I make in the report will open the door to a dialogue where our community can do more and is enabled to do more - because engaging the community is really important and enabling the grass roots of the multi-stakeholder model, is what At-Large is all about. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:37:15 -0700 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org> CC: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Mandy Carver <Mandy.Carver(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org> Dear Fadi, please be so kind to find attached my report about the December 2012 Dubai "World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)" for your perusal. This report is divided into two parts: 1. What happened at WCIT 2. Suggested next steps for ICANN/At-Large At this stage, I do not expect you to be able to read through the whole document by our meeting tomorrow at the ICANN offices, but I look forward to summarize its main lines to you in person. This report is unclassified. You may therefore share it with your colleagues (and are indeed encouraged to share it) - as I shall also make it downloadable from an on-line archive. Please note that I did not author this report under any authority other than my personal opinions - hence as an individual only, for various reasons. However, since I had access to the WCIT's meetings thanks to being a full delegate in the UK Delegation, I have obtained prior permission from our Head of Delegation to release its contents with no restriction. I shall also share this report directly with the At-Large Community. I hope that this report will help you formulate your own point of view about the WCIT as part of the various sources which I am sure you have consulted and to identify the steps that ICANN and its communities - and the At-Large Community in particular - should take, in my point of view, to remedy some of the issues raised. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

1 0