March 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ATRT-2: How to get on group skype chat?
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

YOo need to contact someone who is already on it, either directly or via another group chant that I, Olivier, Avri or At-Large Staff are good places to start. Alan At 14/03/2013 12:34 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The first face-to-face is off and running. It can be followed at >http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/. > >The Wiki page is: >https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT+2+Face-to-Face+Meeting > >I have started a group Skype chat - ATRT-2-At-Large. > >Alan

1 0

ATRT-2
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

The first face-to-face is off and running. It can be followed at http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/. The Wiki page is: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT+2+Face-to-Face+Meeting I have started a group Skype chat - ATRT-2-At-Large. Alan

1 0

Draft ALAC Rules of Procedure & Upcoming Teleconference Review Meeting
by Heidi Ullrich March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013

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. 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 (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) indicating if they will be joining one of the interpreted channels. 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) or e-mail to the ALAC Working List ( alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@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 (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@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 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. 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

3 2

Google proposes to open its "closed generics"
by Evan Leibovitch March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

Google has promised, in a letter to Fadi, that if it gets custody of certain strings considered to be closed generics, it will make subdomains under them publicly available. It probably will not, however, use the traditional indirect channel of going through registrars. This is exactly the kind of hybrid approach anticipated by the ALAC statement on the issue, and why I believed it prudent not to reject the concept out of hand. http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/03/09/if-it-gets-them-google-may-open-search-a… - Evan (via mobile)

2 1

IMPORTANT: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENTS on gTLD Objections
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 9, 2013

March 9, 2013

Dear ALAC members, by now, you should have received your ballots, all 4 of them, to vote on each of the Applications for the ".HEALTH" string. BEFORE VOTING, I invite you to review all of the information at hand for each of these applications. The Conference Call we had today discussed the details of the context in which those objections are being considered and explained where all of the information was. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO CONSULT THE RECORDING OF THIS CALL BEFORE GOING ANY FURTHER. This is linked from the call Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/8JNwAg On this agenda page, you will also find the following: - links to a summary of RALO advice for EACH of the .HEALTH applications (Section 3: read all of the comments on each of the WIKI sub-pages, for each application because this is where Dev has posted the correspondence received) 1. Applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg> 2. Applicant ""Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg> 3. Applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg> 4. Applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string <https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg> - a review of the replies received by RALOs who had the most discussion about the matter (Section 4) - A review of the PICs - Public Interest Commitment; of the GAC early Warnings; of the applications etc. - a link to the At-Large New gTLD Review Group mailing list archive. This will allow you to be up to date with all correspondence received from the applicants, as well as other organisations supporting or opposing the objections. This makes for an interesting reading. Please look for the "View by Date" for February and March 2013. It is worth noting that ALL CORRESPONDENCE is on each one of the WIKI pages where Dev has posted them. Before voting, PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS ADVICE. Take a *couple of hours* this week-end to make up your mind. If in doubt, ask your colleagues on the ALAC list. And I repeat: please listen to the call recording, if you have missed the call. Several very important questions were answered. Also have a look at the Chat record. Staff have submitted a priority request for the transcript of the call to be made available to us as soon as possible and will announce it as soon as it is received. Have a good week-end, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

3 2

Material for review by the ALAC regarding objection statements to 4 new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 9, 2013

March 9, 2013

Dear All, Here is a summary of the information available for review by the ALAC regarding the RALO advice on the objection statements on community grounds to 4 new gTLD applications. Many of this information were linked on the Friday March 8 2013 ALAC's call (https://community.icann.org/x/8JNwAg) but are repeated here for reference. All of the wiki pages with the objection statements against : - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) have been updated with - links to applicants' Public Interest Commitments (PICs) - correspondence received by the gTLD Review Group over the past 48 hours, including * letters from individual applicants, * letters of support for objections from organisations and emails from the WHO clarifying issues raised on the NARALO list. With many of the correspondence received (even today), directed at the objection statement against Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" string, the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg was also updated, for reference, even though this is no longer under ALAC's consideration, as per RALO advice. Also, there was discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements and can be reviewed on the RALO mailing list archives: NARALO: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/thread.html APRALO: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/thread.html LACRALO: https://community.icann.org/x/Q5FwAg (wiki page) gTLD Review Group List archives : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/ (for reference, but again all correspondence regarding the applications and objection statements have been posted on the individual wiki pages) Also, the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists the 4 tests as specified in the Applicant GuideBook that the objection statement must meet for the objection to prevail. Also for useful reading on community objection grounds: Circle ID article: "Thinking Carefully About New gTLD Objections: Community (3 of 4)" http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130219_thinking_carefully_about_new_gtld_ob… Independent Objector's (IO) comments on controversial applications: http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independen… The IO comments shows the reasoning behind his decisions as to whether to file objections on community or limited public interest concerns. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, In anticipation of the ALAC Teleconference scheduled for Friday 8th March 2013 at 1800 UTC to consider "RALO Advice Regarding Objection Statements on the *.health* String Applications," I am sharing my views and position below as I am unsure if I would be sufficiently lucid to discuss such an important issue at 2am my time. I anticipate 2 important questions will be raised for discussion (prior to the ALAC vote on whether or not to advance the objections against the 4 applications for “.health” as per regional advice supported by 3/5 RALOs): 1) Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community objections? - This question has been raised by parties who wish to question the legitimacy of the ALAC in terms of our role in the objection process. 2) Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)? * On Question 1: Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community objections?* In my view, the ALAC absolutely has standing to assert and file community objections. The role of the ALAC is to represent the interests of individual Internet users (see ICANN Bylaws). Our community is thus the “community of Internet users” around the world and within this community are: a) Individual Internet users who are organized and involved formally in the ICANN system (eg., ALSes); b) Individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally involved in the ICANN system. c) Individual Internet users who are not organized in specific groups and are not formally involved in the ICANN system. All of these people fall within the bounds of our "community" and we are mandated to represent their interests. The ALAC structure itself is designed to take into account this diversity in our community. We have ALAC members who are elected by each region to represent the collective ALS interests and we have ALAC members like myself, who are appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee, who are independent of ALSes. The community that I represent (apart from my adopted home of APRALO) comprises those who are not formally represented in the ICANN system and these users (whether organized or not) may be focused on a variety of issue interest such as health, child safety, etc. In terms of whether or not the ALAC has standing to object on behalf of IMIA. IMIA falls under the category of individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally involved in ICANN. Groups like IMIA can freely enter the ICANN system when their interests are affected and the system is flexible enough to accommodate that via the ALAC and its "community", which is a strength. *On Question 2: Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)?*** Although I am inclined to view the submission of PICs by applicants as generally a positive sign), I am hesitant to consider them in my decision-making/vote on the objections at this point in time. My reasons are as follows: 1. The timeline for the At-Large objections process never factored the PICs process (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31178691/alac-facts-object… ). RALOs did not have sufficient time to consider them in their vote and the ALAC does not have sufficient time to review carefully the contents of each PIC against the original applications before voting. 2. The PICs currently have significant weaknesses: a) enforceability – the PICSDRP framework currently does not exist and has yet to be developed where the applicants expect that it will be developed via “consensus policy,” which could swing in their favor; and b) the commitments are self-defined by the applicants where “the registry operator may choose not to nominate any element of their application that are PICs, or nominate only those elements of the application that the registry operator wants considered as a commitment.” The PICs thus may contain crucial gaps in terms of public interest and end user protection. For an elaboration of these concerns, see draft statement on “At-Large Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification” by Holly Raiche ( https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+New+gTLD… ). Holly has also highlighted that ICANN currently has no oversight in addressing these gaps based on the existing arrangements. Based on the above, I am inclined to not consider the PICs at this point in time. When the PICs come under proper review, the ALAC will have an opportunity to comment. Best regards, Rinalia

5 5

Material for review by the ALAC regarding objection statements to 4 new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, Just a summary of the information available for review by the ALAC regarding the RALO advice on the objection statements on community grounds to 4 new gTLD applications. All of the wiki pages with the objection statements against : - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) have been updated with - links to applicants' Public Interest Commitments (PICs) - correspondence received by the gTLD RG (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/) over the past 48 hours, including * letters from individual applicants, * letters of support for objections from organisations and emails from the WHO clarifying issues raised on the NARALO list With many of the correspondence received (even today), directed at the objection statement against Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" string, the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg was also updated, for reference. Also, there was discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements and can be reviewed on the RALO mailing list archives: NARALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/thread.html APRALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/thread.html LACRALO : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40931651 (wiki page) Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Important - For the 8 March ALAC Meeting on .health Objections - A view on key questions prior to ALAC vote
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear Ed, Irrespective of the weaknesses of the PIC, it is important that a PIC is submitted by applicants as a means of holding them accountable. What exists now is a start, something for the ALAC to work on in collaboration with the GAC in making sure that the PICs become enforceable and comprehensive. The APRALO regional advice was that it votes NO to the objection on .jiankang (.健康) provided that Stable Tone submits a PIC. Stable Tone has done that. To me, this satisfies that precondition. So the APRALO vote would not change. Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Evan: > > I know the fact but I would like to know the thinking process here. The > suggestion by Rinalia is geared to all in ALAC and will be weighted as part > of our deliberations for the rest of the objections. In my personal case I > deferred to APRALO on their IDN string decision which was "No" with the > caveat. If they had indicated YES, I would have indicated YES too. I do not > know if the APRALO vote would have had the same effect in others too. > > -ed > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The question is not really relevant anymore. The IDN objection is now >> dead (as far as the ALAC process is concerned) because it did not get the >> support of three regions. Only the four Latin string objections are still >> being considered. >> >> - Evan (via mobile) >> On 2013-03-08 10:25 AM, "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Rinalia: >>> >>> What are your thoughts about the "No" vote from APRALO for the .jiankang >>> (.健康) which was caveated by their submitted PIC which you are suggesting >>> not to consider during the ALAC discussions? In other words, will the >>> "No" >>> vote will change to a "Yes" vote if the PIC is not to be considered at >>> the >>> end? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -ed >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear ALAC Colleagues, >>> > >>> > In anticipation of the ALAC Teleconference scheduled for Friday 8th >>> March >>> > 2013 at 1800 UTC to consider "RALO Advice Regarding Objection >>> Statements on >>> > the *.health* String Applications," I am sharing my views and position >>> > below as I am unsure if I would be sufficiently lucid to discuss such >>> an >>> > important issue at 2am my time. >>> > >>> > I anticipate 2 important questions will be raised for discussion >>> (prior to >>> > the ALAC vote on whether or not to advance the objections against the 4 >>> > applications for “.health” as per regional advice supported by 3/5 >>> RALOs): >>> > >>> > 1) Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community >>> objections? - >>> > This question has been raised by parties who wish to question the >>> > legitimacy of the ALAC in terms of our role in the objection process. >>> > >>> > 2) Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest Commitments >>> (PIC) >>> > by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., vote)? >>> > >>> > * >>> > On Question 1: Does the ALAC have standing to assert and file community >>> > objections?* >>> > >>> > In my view, the ALAC absolutely has standing to assert and file >>> community >>> > objections. The role of the ALAC is to represent the interests of >>> > individual Internet users (see ICANN Bylaws). Our community is thus >>> the >>> > “community of Internet users” around the world and within this >>> community >>> > are: >>> > >>> > a) Individual Internet users who are organized and involved >>> formally in >>> > the ICANN system (eg., ALSes); >>> > >>> > b) Individual Internet users who are organized, but not formally >>> > involved in the ICANN system. >>> > >>> > c) Individual Internet users who are not organized in specific >>> groups >>> > and are not formally involved in the ICANN system. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > All of these people fall within the bounds of our "community" and we >>> are >>> > mandated to represent their interests. The ALAC structure itself is >>> > designed to take into account this diversity in our community. We have >>> > ALAC members who are elected by each region to represent the >>> collective ALS >>> > interests and we have ALAC members like myself, who are appointed by >>> the >>> > ICANN Nominating Committee, who are independent of ALSes. The >>> community >>> > that I represent (apart from my adopted home of APRALO) comprises >>> those who >>> > are not formally represented in the ICANN system and these users >>> (whether >>> > organized or not) may be focused on a variety of issue interest such as >>> > health, child safety, etc. >>> > >>> > In terms of whether or not the ALAC has standing to object on behalf of >>> > IMIA. IMIA falls under the category of individual Internet users who >>> are >>> > organized, but not formally involved in ICANN. Groups like IMIA can >>> freely >>> > enter the ICANN system when their interests are affected and the >>> system is >>> > flexible enough to accommodate that via the ALAC and its "community", >>> which >>> > is a strength. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > *On Question 2: Should the ALAC consider the submitted Public Interest >>> > Commitments (PIC) by the applicants in making its decision (i.e., >>> vote)?*** >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Although I am inclined to view the submission of PICs by applicants as >>> > generally a positive sign), I am hesitant to consider them in my >>> > decision-making/vote on the objections at this point in time. My >>> reasons >>> > are as follows: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 1. The timeline for the At-Large objections process never factored >>> the >>> > PICs process (see >>> > >>> > >>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31178691/alac-facts-object… >>> > ). RALOs did not have sufficient time to consider them in their vote >>> and >>> > the ALAC does not have sufficient time to review carefully the >>> contents of >>> > each PIC against the original applications before voting. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2. The PICs currently have significant weaknesses: a) >>> enforceability – >>> > the PICSDRP framework currently does not exist and has yet to be >>> developed >>> > where the applicants expect that it will be developed via “consensus >>> > policy,” which could swing in their favor; and b) the commitments are >>> > self-defined by the applicants where “the registry operator may choose >>> not >>> > to nominate any element of their application that are PICs, or nominate >>> > only those elements of the application that the registry operator wants >>> > considered as a commitment.” The PICs thus may contain crucial gaps in >>> > terms of public interest and end user protection. For an elaboration >>> of >>> > these concerns, see draft statement on “At-Large Revised New gTLD >>> Registry >>> > Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments >>> Specification” >>> > by Holly Raiche ( >>> > >>> > >>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+New+gTLD… >>> > ). Holly has also highlighted that ICANN currently has no oversight in >>> > addressing these gaps based on the existing arrangements. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Based on the above, I am inclined to not consider the PICs at this >>> point in >>> > time. When the PICs come under proper review, the ALAC will have an >>> > opportunity to comment. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Rinalia >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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… >>> >> > > > -- > *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. >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH
by Avri Doria March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Opps, sent from wrong address first time around. Hi, First apologies for forwarding the last message to the whole At-Large list, I fumble fingered thew address. I meant to copy the ALAC list as those are the voters. Second: The secretariat has graciously fixed the content issue with the Feb 12 meeting transcript https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31169021/20120228_ALAC-en.… In that transcript, the following appears: Avri Doria: ... The other pending issue in all of that is the issue I brought up last time I spoke on it, and I don’t know if I was supposed to do anything beyond it like send an email confirming it; but there was the whole issue of the scope when it comes to community-based objections, which is one of the two types that ALAC can make. And we talked about it last time that the scope went from very narrow – meaning something that affected ALAC – to slightly wider, something that affected the RALOs and ALSes; to something wider, something that affected anything that ALSes could care about in terms of their local community, etc. So now that’s something that was sent as a scope question to you all. We’ve had in our last meeting one recommendation that sort of said there’s really no reason to reply to that because ALAC will have to approve whether to make an objection on each individual case and that the decision will be made at that point. Now, I think that might be a little late to not have a guideline from ALAC on what the scope is and certainly that’s not— [background conversation] Avri Doria: Anyhow, I think I’m just about finished. So anyway, that’s where we’re at. You’ll have something to review all things being equal, and I still have a pending question for you all; whether you— [background conversation] Avri Doria: Thank you. [background conversation] Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, go ahead Avri. Avri Doria: I think I’m actually done. I spoke for quite a while going into this late time of the meeting, so I guess if there’s questions… In going back to At-Large New gTLD WG meetings: In https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLDs+WG++06-02-2012+Transc… Avri Doria: Okay great, thank you. Okay, anything else on grounds for objection? I’m just reading it as I go along. Okay, any issue with moving on to “Who can file an objection to a gTLD application?” Okay, in that one, as summarized there’s a repeating of what are the objections. Then there’s the “ALAC only has standing to object if you feel the application is of limited public (inaudible) objections or on community grounds if ALAC/At-Large is the community that is explicitly or implicitly targeted.” Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Avri, I have a comment on that. Avri Doria: Okay. Dev Anand Teelucksingh: For those who are looking at this, this is part of the first set of notes I did for the night of January 20, 2012. So I forgot to update the notes which I did… If you go down to the “Overview Summary of Draft Objection Process,” I did mention the concerns regarding community grounds – that discussion is ongoing as to what extent the ALAC is standing to object to it, etc. So that is further down on the page. I just forgot to update the earlier text. In https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLDs+WG+13-02-2012+Transcr… one finds the following in a longer exchange: Alan Greenberg: Thank you. On that last issue, we really don’t have to worry about what the scope is until the time comes to start formulating objections. It doesn’t even have to be, our procedure doesn’t change based on what the scope is so there’s plenty of time to do that. We need not to forget it but there’s plenty of time. At this point, I think I have covered the ground that shows that the issue was discussed both in the group and in ALAC. and while I still can't produce the 'smoking gun' that indicates this issue will be dealt with when we get there, I think the lack of any quotable solution indicates the possibility that this issue remains to be decided by you all. Again, apologies for fumble fingering and for the info dump. I remain available to answer any question anyone may have on this issue. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH > Date: 7 March 2013 15:41:00 EST > To: ICANN ALAC Executive Commitee list <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> >> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world. >> >> Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people. >> >> >> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it. >> >> >> Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one. >> > > These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community. > > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html > > In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-… > > Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that. > > In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs. > > The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is. > > The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks. > > --- > > I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there". Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to. > > > Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24. Also I find that: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription… is empty, so it is hard to check. > > I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN is also empty. > > In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate: > > a. it was an issue in the Wg > b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope > c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that > d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now. > > I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find > > > In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction. But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed. In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make. > > avri > > > > On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> >>> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world. >>> >> Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people. >> >> >>> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it. >>> >> >> Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one. >> >>> Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections. >> >> Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously? >> >> (If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.) >> >> >>> I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case. >>> >> I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing. >> >> >>> I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue, >> >> >> Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did. >> >>> Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments. There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much. >>> >> You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision. >> >> >>> I advise great care in your next steps. >> >> IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community. >> >> The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive, >> >> >>> Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said. It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member. >> >> And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred. >> >> In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter. >> >> - Evan > > > > On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev, >> but why me and Avri? >> >> Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object. >> But just in case you DO.... " >> >> Precious. >> >> - Evan (via mobile) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0