November 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Reminder - Doodle / Setting time for monthly ALAC call
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

Dear All, Please note that this Doodle poll is to schedule a time for the monthly ALAC call, not only the call on Tuesday 25 November. Please provide your general availability! If you availability is different for 25th November, please make note of this in the comments or alternatively, let me know off list. If you need to amend your input, please do so directly on the Doodle poll. You have an edit option. http://doodle.com/dfzkeqk6iu23inw6 Thank you! Kind regards, Gisella From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> Date: Friday, 7 November 2014 23:21 To: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: Second update URL DOODLE / Next ALAC meeting time on 25 November 2014 **Second update URL for doodle Dear All, Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule the time for the next call of the ALAC monthly on Tuesday, 25 November 2014. http://doodle.com/dfzkeqk6iu23inw6 Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> One World, One Internet

1 0

CONSENSUS CALL: Accountability CCWG Member selection
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

This is a Consensus Call for ALAC Members. As you know, the Charter for the Accountability CCWG is under review and is expected to be ratified (with or without modification) by most ACs and SOs in the coming few weeks (see https://community.icann.org/x/JjDxAg) Accordingly we will need to select Members for this CCWG as representatives of the ALAC. Following a discussion with the ALT, I would like to suggest the following that I hope you will all agree with. - We are allowed five Members on the CCWG and as per our standard practice, we will attempt to select one per region. - Members of the Accountability CCWG will need to be familiar with ICANN and its various current accountability mechanisms (all well documented) or as per the CCWG Charter, must otherwise have expertise in related areas (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08…) - Also according to the Charter, Members must be willing "Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG-Accountability on an ongoing and longterm basis". - To ensure that the ALAC representatives meet these criteria, there will be a call for Expressions of Interest (EoI) issued which will then be evaluated. - Olivier has agreed to lead the selection process as he has for several other recent selections. He will convene a group based on the one that made the previous selections, but in consultation with the RALOs, may replace those members who: - are no longer willing to serve; - previously volunteered but did not meet their commitments - plan to submit an EoI to be a Member in the Accountability CCWG NOTE that participation in the CCWG is open to all, and the only difference between Members and other Participants is that Members may take part in polls (if any) to guide the CCWG and Members may need to interact with the ALAC or other At-Large groups and potentially take direction from them. To start, the CCWG will be populated with Participants who indicated an interest in the defunct Accountability Cross Community group (https://community.icann.org/x/TwHxAg) Do we have agreement that this process should be followed to select the Accountability CCWG Members representing the ALAC? Please respond by 23:59 UTC on Monday, 10 November 2014. Alan

9 8

Second update URL DOODLE / Next ALAC meeting time on 25 November 2014
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 7, 2014

Nov. 7, 2014

**Second update URL for doodle Dear All, Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule the time for the next call of the ALAC monthly on Tuesday, 25 November 2014. http://doodle.com/dfzkeqk6iu23inw6 Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> One World, One Internet

1 0

UPDATED URL DOODLE / Next ALAC meeting time on 25 November 2014
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 7, 2014

Nov. 7, 2014

**With updated URL for doodle Dear All, Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule the time for the next call of the ALAC monthly on Tuesday, 25 November 2014. http://doodle.com/p29cgmbs37tzz7fn Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> One World, One Internet

1 0

DOODLE / Next ALAC meeting time on 25 November 2014
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 7, 2014

Nov. 7, 2014

Dear All, Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule the time for the next call of the ALAC monthly on Tuesday, 25 November 2014. http://doodle.com/9aamgdtcgpgsb2rr Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> One World, One Internet

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] New Public Comment: .NGO/.ONG Registry Agreement Amendment - Mandatory Technical Bundling of Second-Level Domains
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 7, 2014

Nov. 7, 2014

No statement was issues when the PIR request was being considered, and no statement is required now that it has been approved. I did ad a personal thought to the policy page though - https://community.icann.org/x/njHxAg. Alan At 06/11/2014 08:39 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: >Dear All, > >Kindly note that the At-Large Workspace for a new Public Comment >request has been created: > ><https://community.icann.org/x/njHxAg>.NGO/.ONG Registry Agreement >Amendment - Mandatory Technical Bundling of Second-Level Domains > >Please contact staff if you'd like to draft an ALAC Statement in >response to this Public Comment request. > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >Peregrine and Terri Agnew >ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >Facebook: ><https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge>www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge >Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>@ICANN_AtLarge > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

CHARTER: Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 5, 2014

Nov. 5, 2014

As many of you are aware, a new activity is being chartered to make recommendations on how to improve ICANN Accountability and Governance. The purpose is two-fold: 1. the effort will recommend changes which are believed to be necessary in order to allow the IANA Stewardship Transition to take place - the US Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has explicitly included ICANN Accountability as a necessary pre-requisite for the transition; 2. as a 2nd track, the effort will address general ICANN Accountability and Governance needs over and above those needed for the IANA transition. The process to be followed has evolved over recent months. It started with an ICANN staff devised methodology proposed in August which was modified significantly based on community feedback. Based on further community input which included a unified statement to senior ICANN management from volunteer leaders in all ACs and SOs in September, the entire process was replaced with a volunteer-led Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). A proposed Charter has now been drafted by a small team which included Tijani Ben Jemaa and León Sánchez from the ALAC. This Charter can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/JjDxAg. It must now be ratified by all ACs and SOs that want to participate (presumably all of them). Both Tijani and León believe that this Charter addresses all of the concerns that have been previously raised by At-Large and are recommending that the Charter be approved by the ALAC. Please review the Charter and if you have comments or questions, please post them on the Wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/JjDxAg) and Tijani and León will address them. We will accept comments until 12 November 2014 at 23:59 UTC. A 5-day vote of the ALAC to ratify the Charter will begin on 13 November 2014 at 23:59. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

See embedded. Alan At 04/11/2014 03:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >Sadly (from my not-so-humble point of view), I >have seen other cases where the GAC takes a >position that I do not support in the same >wholehearted manner as I do the advice on the >Red Cross national names. And I would hope that >the voice of reason would prevail in those cases >with the GAC NOT getting its way. For that we >need reasonable processes, checks and balances >â. > > >âIt is notable to me that the GAC is no longer singling out special > protection for the International Olympic > Committee, which it originally advanced at the > same level of urgency as the Red Cross. AG: That's because the IOC got pretty much all they wanted. As I think the RCRC would have if they had not forgotten the 189 country names for the great part of the PDP. >In the original PDP working group, it was ALAC >alone (represented by Alan and me) who >differentiated between the two. In my optimistic >moments I would like to think we had an >influence on the GAC's wise choice to concentrate on the Red Cross. > >The inevitable conclusion is that it is the >process that is broken. A more consultative and >inclusive approach than existed might have >yielded results that would not have led to this >impasse. But so long as ICANN has multiple >different classes of stakeholders -- >differentiating policy makers and advisors, for >instance -- such friction is inevitable. > >(For what it's worth, I also expressed this view >during my interview with the GNSO Review staff >during the LA meeting, and proposed a more inclusive structure for the GNSO.) > >Certainly the GAC has been known to overreach on >its requests, but we can deal with that >sufficiently if given the appropriate venue. I >would remind that the ALAC analysis of the GAC >"scorecard" on the new gTLD process, some years >back, sometimes sided with the Board, sometimes with the GAC. We were among > the few in ICANN to >âanalyzeâ > every individual recommendation on its own merits >â rather than "take sides".â > >âGood-faith negotiation and consensus is >possible if the will exists -- as well as a >framework that does not invite confrontation. AG: Correct. Which is why I have a real problem with the GAC declaring that specific issues are 100% within their domain and no one may second-guess them or even discuss them.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

See embedded. Alan At 04/11/2014 02:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I put the substance of what the GAC is asking >for related to the Red Cross in a VERY different >category from their advice that the topic should >not be subject to a policy development process. > > > >âThe point is, the GNSO has already â > >âhad its PDP on the issue, and when given the >opportunity did not endorse the necessary >protection for the Red Cross. Its report, >finished late last year, was full of >contradictory positions and different levels of >consensus, mixing in the Red Cross protections >with those of groups that were far less in need >of protection (ie, the International Olympic Committee). > >And clearly, having done this PDP already, there >is an insufficient level of enforcement of Red >Cross (and associated org) names at the current time. > >As these names are not usually protected by >trademarks but in many cases by explicit >national laws and international conventions, the >usual ICANN remedies such as the Trademark >Clearinghouse may not be appropriate. > >If a PDP has already been done, what are the >options? Another PDP be initiated for many of >the same issues, will take more years to >complete, years during which countless >fraudulent and misleading names will be >registered with no ICANN-endorsed limit or remedy. AG: The recommendation related to the RCRC have not yet been addressed by the Board. There is a provision in the PDP to re-convene a PDP WG to consider explicit changes should the GNSO Council choose. Essentially, the Council needs to provide potential recommendations and the PDP WG will agree or disagree. *IF* the GNSO decides to go that route (and there is great opposition, particularly from the NCSG who opposed most all of the added protections with the exception of NGOs), and IF the WG agrees with the new Recs, it is a done deal and will not take very long. If either of those fails, we are back where we started. In my opinion, the reason that the 189 country names were not protected was not a philosophical reason, but that the RC dropped the ball. These names had been mentioned very early on, but then were omitted from the documents when the PDP was convened and most of the way through it. They were resuscitated very near the end of the process, and were viewed by many as the RC getting largely what they had been asking for so far, so they decided to up the ante. For this, and one other reason (the registries had hammered out an agreement about what they were going to support, and they were just to tired of the whole thing to re-open to consider these names (my wording, not theirs)), this protection was not granted. >â > >What evidence exists that raising the issue >again as a PDP would achieve a different result from what has already happened? >â â >â<https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html>Is >such an approach even rational?â >And even if a better result DOES come out of >ârevisiting â >the process, two or three years from now >â and burning hundreds more person-hours of volunteer timeâ >, how much >âirreversible â >damage to the public good and public trust will have happened by th >âenâ >?â > >â- Evanâ

1 0

Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 4, 2014

Nov. 4, 2014

Sharing. > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-0… Best regards, Rinalia

3 3