February 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 17, 2014

Feb. 17, 2014

Dear Olivier, I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny beyond the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may have a view on some of the key issues. The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher level issue. Best regards, Rinalia Dear Staff, I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the request is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are buried in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. Action Needed: 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight prominently on the wiki page. 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones that they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and analyze the response. Thanks. Rinalia On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of Contact > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to gather > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by *28 > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > > Regards, > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > >

2 2

Fwd: Response to Willett letter re: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 15, 2014

Feb. 15, 2014

Dear colleagues, please be so kind to find the response which the co-signatories have agreed to, re-emphasizing the points they have made. I believe it has taken into account much of the dismay and remarks conveyed on this mailing list regarding the original response received. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Response to Willett letter re: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:43:39 -0500 From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> CC: <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, <peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl(a)gih.com>, "'Alan Greenberg'" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, <evan(a)telly.org>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "'Christine Willett'" <christine.willett(a)icann.org> Dear Cherine, Please find our response to Christine Willett's letter of 02 February 2014 attached. On behalf of the signatories and many many others in the ICANN community we trust that the NGPC will give due reconsider to our request to give the larger community an opportunity to comment on the safeguards recommended in the Policy Advisory Board model. Thank you taking this up within the NGPC. Kind regards, RA *Ron Andruff* *RNA Partners* *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: FW: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

As another of the signatories, I am more than a bit discouraged that such an issue of public interest was seemingly fully delegated to a staff function without due action by the Board. I find particularly disturbing, the following excerpt from the minutes of the NGPC discussing the issue: >The Chair asked for input on merits of an >alternative proposal (the Policy Advisory Board >Model) submitted by a community member on how to >implement the Category 1 Safeguards. Christine >Willett and Dan Halloran provided an overview of >the Policy Advisory Board model, and noted that >the model represents a departure from the role >of the registry operator as contemplated in the >Applicant Guidebook and Registry Agreement. > >The Committee considered whether it was more >appropriate for individual registry operators to >implement a Policy Advisory Board model, as >opposed to ICANN imposing such a model on all of >the registry operators for strings listed in the >Category 1 Safeguard advice. Dan noted that some >individual applications already include >structures similar to the Policy Advisory Board model. > >Heather indicated that the Policy Advisory Board >proposal was circulated to the GAC and it may >generate discussion during the Committee's >upcoming meeting with the GAC. Ray Plzak >suggested that the Committee be on the same page >when approached by the community about this issue. The PAB is indeed a departure of the model envisioned by the Applicant Guidebook. THAT IS WHY IT WAS PROPOSED! Alan At 05/02/2014 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >As a signatory to the original letter and having contributed to its text, I >share Olivier's exasperation at how quickly and cavalierly this bottom-up, >innovative proposal has been dismissed. > >I had eventually come around to the view of Carlton Samuels and others that >the ICANN Public Interest Committment regime is little but a toothless >public relations stunt. The PAB proposal seems like one that could have a >real effect, one that is sufficiently independent of ICANN to have real >credibility. > >I invite At-Large members to look at the proposal -- the original letter >from members of At-Large and the Business >Community<<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan…>https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan…>-- >and offer feedback. IMO, this is something worth advancing. > >- Evan > > > > > >On 5 February 2014 10:44, Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond ><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ocl at gih.com> wrote: > > > Dear ALAC Colleagues, > > > > further to the email below and the letter that was sent to the Board to > > call for a Public Consultation about the proposal of a Policy Advisory > > Board model, please be so kind to find attached the (very fast) response > > received from Christine Willett, Vice President of the gTLD Operations. > > > > In summary: > > It's a "negative" with regards to a Public Consultation. > > It's "optional" if registry operators want to voluntarily implement such > > a model. Actually, it's a less than "optional"... it's a "not prohibited". > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 29/01/2014 16:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > Dear ALAC colleagues, > > > > > > please be so kind to find below and attached, a letter which was sent by > > > Ron Andruff to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN New gTLD Program > > > Committee (NGPC) requesting a Public Consultation to take place about > > > the Policy Advisory Board model proposal which the ALAC has supported in > > > the past. > > > > > > Due to very short time-lines for a reply and since the letter asks for a > > > Public Consultation in which the ALAC will be able to expand on the > > > shortcomings of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) which we have > > > already pointed out but were ignored, the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) has > > > given me the green light to sign the letter on their behalf. You'll also > > > find a couple of people from our community co-signing in their > > > individual capacity too. Indeed, many of the PICs filed are so weak, > > > including clauses reserving the right for the gTLD Registry to ignore > > > the commitments altogether, that this process is being grossly > > > mishandled and the ALAC need to voice its concerns. > > > * > > > *Kind regards, > > > > > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > > > ALAC Chair > > > ** > > > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > > > *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 18:36 > > > *To:* > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby > at icann.org' > > > *Cc:* > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden > at ic.gc.ca; > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold > at dbcdd.gov.au'; 'Alan > > > Greenberg'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; Marilyn Cade > (<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>marilynscade > at hotmail.com) > > > *Subject:* RE: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation > > > *Importance:* High > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Cherine, > > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from discussions held in Beijing and Buenos Aires with a > > > broad cross-section of the ICANN community, we understand that > > > SGs/ACs/Constituencies want to provide public comments on how ICANN > > > manages the proper roll out of regulated industries/sensitive string new > > > gTLDs. The concept of the Policy Advisory Boards is currently being > > > circulated more broadly within the community so the purpose of this > > > email and attached letter is to follow up with the NGPC on this matter > > > in support of the GAC Buenos Aires Communique reference to Public > > > Interest Commitment Specifications (PICS). > > > > > > > > > > > > We look forward to your response in due course. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > RA > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > > > > > *RNA Partners* > > > > > > *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> * > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 18:41 > > > *To:* > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby > at icann.org' > > > *Cc:* > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden > at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>; > > > > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold > at dbcdd.gov.au'; Olivier Crepin-Leblond > > > *Subject:* Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory > > > Board model > > > *Importance:* High > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Cherine, > > > > > > > > > > > > During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at > > > ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from > > > regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how > > > they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of > > > those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such > > gTLDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of, > > > or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN. In recognizing > > > the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants > > > will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact > > > of their applications, I have been working with others to develop > > > approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This > > > approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with > > > regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such > > > as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and > > > enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their > > > respective gTLDs. In our view, these practices and standards should > > > reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest > > > organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs > > > applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as > > > possible. An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be > > > established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the > > > practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable > > > registrants and uses. > > > > > > > > > > > > The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism > > > by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can > > > be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains > > > at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and > > > professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide > > > entities engaged in legitimate activities. This PAB approach > > > establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive > > > string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy > > > Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns > > > associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and > > > implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy > > > Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility > > > criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be > > > incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments > > > Specifications (PICS) for the registry. > > > > > > > > > > > > The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard > > > threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a > > > standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf > > > of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC > > > deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that > > > would be of benefit to your Committee. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > RA > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > > > > > *RNA Partners* > > > > > > *www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC > at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > At-Large Online: > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC > at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>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

4 3

ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

Of note: - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and whether there was any substantive discussion. Alan From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 7 February 2014 1. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership 2. Main Agenda a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership 2. Main Agenda: a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf [PDF, 189 KB]. Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov1… ). Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf [PDF, 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same topic. Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee to: (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs; and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting. b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be addressed by the Board Governance Committee. Related materials: Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg… Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-improvements-implement… c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) >Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP >procedures as stated in the Bylaws and due >process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October 2013. > >Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) >reached full consensus on the recommendations in >relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > >Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed >the recommendations of the Thick Whois PDP WG, >and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October >2013 by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see >http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131031-1) > >Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the >required voting threshold set forth in the ICANN >Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN contracted parties. > >Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a >Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to assist >ICANN Staff in developing the implementation >details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. > >Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public >comment period was held on the approved >recommendations, and the comments received >strongly supported the recommendations >(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06n…) > >Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the >GNSO Council Policy Recommendations for a new >Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in >section 7.1 of the Final Report (see >http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf >[PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the >President and CEO to develop and execute on an >implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy >consistent with the guidance provided by the >GNSO Council. The President and CEO is >authorized and directed to work with the >Implementation Review Team in developing the >implementation details for the policy, and to >continue communication with the community on such work.

6 7

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

The ICANN definition of volunteer is not really that strange. You just need to be looking at it from the right angle. An "ICANN volunteer" is soome who does work for ICANN, but is not paid *BY* ICANN. Think of it as having a benevolent employer who says that on Freidays, you should not come into work, but make yourself available to drive old folks or disabled people to doctor's appointments. YOU are getting paid for your time, but from the point of view of those who you are helping, you are a volunteer. ICANN is *SO* good at using words in multiple (often more than 2) ways, and presuming that everyone will understand which usage is being used. Rarely happens! Think of the word "consensus". Alan At 12/02/2014 07:27 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Thanks Alan -- what a strange mis/interpretation >of the term "volunteer". Here in Europe a >volunteer is clearly known as a strange species >who spends loads of work hours in public, >charitable but - in any case - *non-paid or >re-funded* endeavors. Any confusion with an >employee who can do this work during his / her >working hours would be simply fanciful! > >But your explanations and quotes clearly show >and explain such confusions that, in fact, the >ICANN (or business driven) culture, >terminologies, rules and habits still haven't >got a clue what *real* volunteers involvement is >in fact! After years of talk about >"internationalization" etc., it's still the same >old and narrow perception of the "rest of the >world" or their strange terms, languages or >tribal habits. And they do not even understand >why we are getting frustrated about such >hegemonial ignorances -- sorry for being straight. > >Best, Wolf > > >Alan Greenberg wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:48: > >One of the real problems is that we throw around > >the word "volunteer", but it means very different > >things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy > >employee who participates in ICANN is, by the > >normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps > >in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and > >put far more effort into their "volunteering" > >that their terms of employment could call for, > >but they are still a very different beast that > >the typical active At-Large volunteer. > > > >The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect: > > > >Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate > >the equitable participation in applicable ICANN > >activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack > >the financial support of industry players. > > > >Although I was subjected to some strong > >"suggestions" to change the end of the sentence > >to make it more generic, that is the wording that > >went in. It does not give the Board a lot of > >wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I > >got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker > >during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not. > > > >Alan > > > >At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: > >>Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my > >>thinking when following these exchanges. They > >>still haven't got a clue what volunteers > >>involvement is in fact, the time, continuous > >>investment and dedication it means ... Come on > >>guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your > >>problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key > >>reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied > >>or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the > >>years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is > >>still not accredited in this enterprise -- > >>besides some occasional opening statements. > >> > >>Best, Wolf > >> > >> > >>Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21: > >> >Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes. > >> > > >> >You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and > >> >devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make > >> >in this enterprise. > >> > > >> >-Carlton > >> > > >> > > >> >============================== > >> >Carlton A Samuels > >> >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> >============================= > >> > > >> > > >> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand > >> Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> > > >> >> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws > Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September > >> >> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at > >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2… > >> >> > >> >> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on > >> >> October 30 2013. That resolution stated > "This action is not anticipated to > >> >> have a fiscal impact on ICANN." > >> >> > >> >> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tl… > >> >> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This > >> >> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> >> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the > >> NomCom will provide a financial > >> >> savings to ICANN." part. > >> >> > >> >> Dev Anand > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev > Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group > >> Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC > >> >> > submitted a comment on > (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was > >> >> > on the consent agenda. > >> >> > > >> >> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as > >> the commenter): "The commenter > >> >> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of > >> >> technical > >> >> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter > >> >> > recommended that the elimination of the > TLG Liaison not occur until, at > >> >> > least, a mechanism to seek regular > advice from the TLG is in place. The > >> >> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis > >> >> that > >> >> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to > >> >> > technical communities." > >> >> > > >> >> > However, the outcome was the the Board > approves the Bylaws revisions as > >> >> > they were posted for public comment at > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm > >> >> , > >> >> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification. > >> >> > > >> >> > The rationale given was as follows: > >> >> > > >> >> > "With respect to the strengthening of > TLG advisory mechanism, the Board > >> >> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 > >> >> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15. > >> >> > > >> >> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical > >> >> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that > >> >> make > >> >> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing > >> community outreach efforts. The > >> >> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does > not prevent these organizations > >> >> > from continuing with their outreach efforts. > >> >> > > >> >> > This action is anticipated to have a > >> positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> >> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a > >> >> financial > >> >> > savings to ICANN. Further, the > anticipated evolution and enhancement of > >> >> how > >> >> > ICANN receives advice on technical > matters could have a positive impact > >> >> on > >> >> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or > >> >> > resiliency of the DNS." > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Dev Anand > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < > >> >> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Of note: > >> >> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the > >> >> NGPC. > >> >> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > >> >> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they > >> >> could > >> >> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be > >> >> done. > >> >> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > >> >> >> - They approved the recommendation on > Thick Whois! Note that this was > >> >> not > >> >> >> on the consent agenda so it will be > interesting to see the minutes and > >> >> >> whether there was any substantive discussion. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Alan > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > >> >> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >> >> >> 7 February 2014 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. Consent Agenda > >> >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> >> Advisory > >> >> >> Committee > >> >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2. Main Agenda > >> >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> >> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy > Development Process Recommendations > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. Consent Agenda: > >> >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> >> >> Advisory Committee > >> >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2. Main Agenda: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> >> >> Development Process (PDP) on the > Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in > >> >> All > >> >> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group > >> >> Charter > >> >> >> at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> >> 189 KB]. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the > >> >> ICANN > >> >> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report > >> >> delivered to > >> >> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > >> >> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus > on twenty-five recommendations in > >> >> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and > >> discussed the recommendations of > >> >> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > >> >> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a > >> public comment period was held on > >> >> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > >> >> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board > >> in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© > >> >> >> that it remained committed to > continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > >> >> >> finalizing the modalities for > permanent protection of IGO acronyms at > >> >> the > >> >> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > >> >> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > >> >> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth > in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > >> >> >> (see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time > to consider the recommendations > >> >> so > >> >> >> that it may take into account advice > from the GAC addressing the same > >> >> topic. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > >> >> >> Program Committee to: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > >> >> >> continues to actively develop an > approach to respond to the GAC advice > >> >> on > >> >> >> protections for IGOs; and > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (2) develop a comprehensive > proposal to address the GAC advice > >> >> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations > for consideration by the Board at a > >> >> >> subsequent meeting. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> >> Recruitment > >> >> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > >> >> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( > >> >> >> > >> >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) > >> >> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > >> >> >> composition, size and recruitment > function of the Nominating Committee. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements > Committee (SIC) recommends that it > >> >> is > >> >> >> time to complete the follow-up work > anticipated in the Final Report and > >> >> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > >> >> >> Board Working Group on Nominating > Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance > >> >> with > >> >> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > >> >> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Related materials: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Final report of the NomCom Review > Finalization Group issued in January > >> >> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > >> >> >> Nominating Committee Improvements > >> Implementation Project Plan adopted in > >> >> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > >> >> >> > >> >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy > Development Process Recommendations > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> >> Development > >> >> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' > Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > >> >> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > >> >> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed > >> PDP procedures as stated in the > >> >> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 > >> >> October > >> >> >>> 2013. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working > Group (WG) reached full consensus > >> >> on > >> >> >>> the recommendations in relation to > the issues outlined in the Charter. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and > discussed the recommendations of > >> >> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted > the Recommendations on 31 October > >> >> 2013 > >> >> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote > (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote > exceeded the required voting threshold > >> >> set > >> >> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > >> >> >>> contracted parties. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > >> >> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > >> >> >>> implementation details for the new > policy should it be approved by the > >> >> >>> ICANN Board. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, > a public comment period was held > >> >> on > >> >> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly > >> >> supported > >> >> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > >> >> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus > Policy on Thick Whois as set forth > >> >> in > >> >> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board > directs the President and CEO to > >> >> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois > >> >> Policy > >> >> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The > >> >> President > >> >> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation > >> >> Review > >> >> >>> Team in developing the implementation > details for the policy, and to > >> >> >>> continue communication with the community on such work. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >> 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+(ALAC) > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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… > >> > > >> > > >> > >>EuroDIG Secretariat > >>http://www.eurodig.org/ > >>mobile +41 79 204 83 87 > >>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >> > >>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation > >>http://euralo.org > >> > >>Profile on LinkedIn > >>http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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+(ALAC) > > > > > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

2 1

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

One of the real problems is that we throw around the word "volunteer", but it means very different things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy employee who participates in ICANN is, by the normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and put far more effort into their "volunteering" that their terms of employment could call for, but they are still a very different beast that the typical active At-Large volunteer. The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect: Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players. Although I was subjected to some strong "suggestions" to change the end of the sentence to make it more generic, that is the wording that went in. It does not give the Board a lot of wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not. Alan At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my >thinking when following these exchanges. They >still haven't got a clue what volunteers >involvement is in fact, the time, continuous >investment and dedication it means ... Come on >guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your >problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key >reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied >or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the >years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is >still not accredited in this enterprise -- >besides some occasional opening statements. > >Best, Wolf > > >Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21: > >Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes. > > > >You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and > >devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make > >in this enterprise. > > > >-Carlton > > > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >============================= > > > > > >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand > Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September > >> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at > >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2… > >> > >> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on > >> October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to > >> have a fiscal impact on ICANN." > >> > >> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014 > >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tl… > >> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This > >> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the > NomCom will provide a financial > >> savings to ICANN." part. > >> > >> Dev Anand > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group > Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC > >> > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was > >> > on the consent agenda. > >> > > >> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as > the commenter): "The commenter > >> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of > >> technical > >> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter > >> > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at > >> > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The > >> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis > >> that > >> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to > >> > technical communities." > >> > > >> > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as > >> > they were posted for public comment at > >> > > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm > >> , > >> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification. > >> > > >> > The rationale given was as follows: > >> > > >> > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board > >> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 > >> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15. > >> > > >> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical > >> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that > >> make > >> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing > community outreach efforts. The > >> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations > >> > from continuing with their outreach efforts. > >> > > >> > This action is anticipated to have a > positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a > >> financial > >> > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of > >> how > >> > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact > >> on > >> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or > >> > resiliency of the DNS." > >> > > >> > > >> > Dev Anand > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < > >> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Of note: > >> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the > >> NGPC. > >> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > >> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they > >> could > >> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be > >> done. > >> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > >> >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was > >> not > >> >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and > >> >> whether there was any substantive discussion. > >> >> > >> >> Alan > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > >> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > >> >> > >> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >> >> 7 February 2014 > >> >> > >> >> 1. Consent Agenda > >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> Advisory > >> >> Committee > >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> > >> >> 2. Main Agenda > >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> >> > >> >> 1. Consent Agenda: > >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> >> Advisory Committee > >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> > >> >> 2. Main Agenda: > >> >> > >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in > >> All > >> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group > >> Charter > >> >> at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> 189 KB]. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the > >> ICANN > >> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report > >> delivered to > >> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > >> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in > >> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and > discussed the recommendations of > >> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > >> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > >> >> > >> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a > public comment period was held on > >> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > >> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board > in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© > >> >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > >> >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at > >> the > >> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > >> >> > >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > >> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > >> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > >> >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations > >> so > >> >> that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same > >> topic. > >> >> > >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > >> >> Program Committee to: > >> >> > >> >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > >> >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice > >> on > >> >> protections for IGOs; and > >> >> > >> >> (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice > >> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a > >> >> subsequent meeting. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> Recruitment > >> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> > >> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > >> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( > >> >> > >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) > >> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > >> >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it > >> is > >> >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and > >> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > >> >> > >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > >> >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance > >> with > >> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > >> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > >> >> > >> >> Related materials: > >> >> > >> >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January > >> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > >> >> Nominating Committee Improvements > Implementation Project Plan adopted in > >> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > >> >> > >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> Development > >> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > >> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > >> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) > >> >> > >> >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed > PDP procedures as stated in the > >> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 > >> October > >> >>> 2013. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus > >> on > >> >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of > >> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October > >> 2013 > >> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1). > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold > >> set > >> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > >> >>> contracted parties. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > >> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > >> >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the > >> >>> ICANN Board. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held > >> on > >> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly > >> supported > >> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > >> >>> > >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > >> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth > >> in > >> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >> >>> > >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to > >> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois > >> Policy > >> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The > >> President > >> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation > >> Review > >> >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to > >> >>> continue communication with the community on such work. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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+(ALAC) > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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… > > > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

I tend to think the first version is more realistic. Whatever it costs to pay for expenses for one additional director-level body, it cannot be a significant blip in ICANN's budget. And if it were, the fix would not to be to get rid of one slot, but to look at the overall process and expenses. Alan At 12/02/2014 03:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September >2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2… > >This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on >October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to >have a fiscal impact on ICANN." > >The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014 >http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tl… >contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This >action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The >removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial >savings to ICANN." part. > >Dev Anand > > > > >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand >Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC > > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was > > on the consent agenda. > > > > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter > > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of technical > > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter > > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at > > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The > > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis that > > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to > > technical communities." > > > > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as > > they were posted for public comment at > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm, > > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification. > > > > The rationale given was as follows: > > > > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board > > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 > > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15. > > > > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical > > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that make > > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The > > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations > > from continuing with their outreach efforts. > > > > This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial > > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of how > > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact on > > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or > > resiliency of the DNS." > > > > > > Dev Anand > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > > wrote: > > > >> Of note: > >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. > >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could > >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. > >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not > >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and > >> whether there was any substantive discussion. > >> > >> Alan > >> > >> > >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > >> > >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >> 7 February 2014 > >> > >> 1. Consent Agenda > >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory > >> Committee > >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> > >> 2. Main Agenda > >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> > >> 1. Consent Agenda: > >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> Advisory Committee > >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> > >> 2. Main Agenda: > >> > >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> > >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All > >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter > >> at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf [PDF, > >> 189 KB]. > >> > >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN > >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted > in a Final Report delivered to > >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > >> > >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in > >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > >> > >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of > >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > >> > >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on > >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > >> > >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© > >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the > >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > >> > >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf [PDF, > >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so > >> that it may take into account advice from > the GAC addressing the same topic. > >> > >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > >> Program Committee to: > >> > >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on > >> protections for IGOs; and > >> > >> (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice > >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a > >> subsequent meeting. > >> > >> > >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment > >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> > >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( > >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) > >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. > >> > >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is > >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and > >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > >> > >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with > >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > >> > >> Related materials: > >> > >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January > >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > >> Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in > >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > >> > >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> > >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development > >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) > >> > >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the > >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final > Report delivered on 21 October > >>> 2013. > >>> > >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on > >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of > >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the > Recommendations on 31 October 2013 > >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1). > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold set > >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > >>> contracted parties. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the > >>> ICANN Board. > >>> > >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on > >>> the approved recommendations, and the > comments received strongly supported > >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > >>> > >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in > >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >>> > >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to > >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy > >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The President > >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation Review > >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to > >>> continue communication with the community on such work. > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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+(ALAC) > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Brief Update for APRALO and ALAC
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 10, 2014

Feb. 10, 2014

Dear Colleagues, *Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies* Following the last APRALO Call and the invitation by ALAC Chair to the wider RALO for members to hold the pen on statements, I advise that I had volunteered to draft the statement on the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. The task involved consulting with the wider community of At Large and also through my own local ALS. By extension, APRALO held the pen. There was feedback from EURALO, LACRALO and NARALO. The final statement can be found via: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag There were instances where there were divergent views expressed and care was taken to include all the views except for one where it was suggested to use the UNESCO model. The statement will go before the ALAC for their final vote. *APRALO and APTLD MoU* A MoU was drafted to capture intentions of both APRALO and APTLD. Ths involved exchanges of email between APTLD GM and the drafting team. The draft was sent to the APRALO for comments following a briefing on the APRALO call. Members were invited to make submissions and comments before 31st January, 2014. Confirmation was received that there were no comments nor submissions published on the Wiki nor sent to Siranush and the APRALO list. *Middle East DNS Forum* I am happy to report that I attended remotely through the channels and it was a very interesting and eye opening Forum where I got to learn about the experiences of the Arab Speaking region. I tweeted on occasion. You can discover what people were saying or thinking via twitter #MEDNSF. What stood out for me was how internet proliferation and access is being redefined with the introduction of Arabic script into the root zone. People were excited and this is fantastic news for communities in the region - many of whom are part of our RALO. It was also great that Ali was there in person. I am not sure how many ALSes were there but it would be great to hear about possible opportunities for further and better engagement with that region. I am also curious as to whether At Large and APRALO brochures were given out at the DNS Forum. Congratulations to Baher, Fahd and the TRR Team in Dubai for hosting a fantastic event! The Adobe was very clear and I was able to stream in on both Adobe and alternated via ITunes live stream. *Middle East Strategy Working Group Workspace* The Middle East community have also been engaging in developing a Middle East Strategy. Ali Almeshal has been active in this space. To monitor developments in this space, kindly visit the Middle East Strategy Working Group Workspace via https://community.icann.org/display/MES/Middle+East+Working+Group. The Strategy Document as well as the FY14 Implementation Plan can be found on the same link under "Documents" (see left pane of the wiki space) at https://community.icann.org/display/MES/Documents. If your ALS is located in the Middle East and you are not aware or part of the Working Group, I would suggest that you contact: Baher Esmat via baher.esmat(a)icann.org *ICANN Oceania Working Group* The Working Group is tasked with working on and developing a regional strategy for engagement. Noting that there are only 5 ALSes in the whole of Oceania which has 27 countries and territories with ccTLDs assigned to them. Work is ongoing. For ALSes in Oceania who are interested in engaging in the Working Group's activities, kindly contact: Save Vocea via save.vocea(a)icann.org Calls are scheduled every fortnight on Wednesdays and we have a call this week. Kind Regards, Sala

2 1

Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 9, 2014

Feb. 9, 2014

Lots of interesting stuff! Alan From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-05feb14… From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2… for an additional annex 2 that relates to GAC Category 1 strings. Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 5 February 2014 1. Main Agenda a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG01 b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG02 c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework 1. Main Agenda: a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a CommuniquÃ© on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing CommuniquÃ©"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a CommuniquÃ© on 18 July 2013 ("Durban CommuniquÃ©"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires and issued a CommuniquÃ© on 20 November 2013 ("Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ©"). Whereas, the NGPC adopted scorecards to respond to certain items of the GAC's advice in the Beijing CommuniquÃ© and the Durban CommuniquÃ©, which were adopted on 4 June 2013, 10 September 2013, and 28 September 2013. Whereas, the NGPC has developed another iteration of the scorecard to respond to certain remaining items of GAC advice in the Beijing CommuniquÃ© and the Durban CommuniquÃ©, and new advice in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ©. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.02.05.NG01), the NGPC adopts the "GAC Advice (Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires): Actions and Updates" (5 February 2014), attached as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1…) to this Resolution, in response to open items of Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC advice as presented in the scorecard. b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Whereas, on 10 October 2013 the Board Governance Committee (BGC) requested staff to draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections "setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes involving Amazon 's Applied-for String and TLDH's Applied-for String." Whereas, the NGPC is considering potential paths forward to address the perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process, including implementing a review mechanism. The review will be limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM. Whereas, the proposed review mechanism, if implemented, would constitute a change to the current String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.02.05.NG02), the NGPC directs the President and CEO, or his designee, to publish for public comment the proposed review mechanism for addressing perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process. c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements Item not considered. d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework Item not considered. Published on 7 February 2014

1 0

Domain Hijacking - For Discussion and Action
by Garth Bruen Feb. 7, 2014

Feb. 7, 2014

Dear Colleagues, This is an ugly topic which has come up frequently but for which little has been done. Thanks to Dev, I have become aware of a high-profile domain theft case in my region. Because the victim is in the United States I am bringing he concerns to the community and will be pushing for serious attention on the problem. The full story can be found here: https://medium.com/p/24eb09e026dd, but basically an attacker used various social engineering methods to steal a domain name and then used it as collateral to steal a Twitter account from the same person. Here the domain was the vector and not the target, but it does not matter. The domain should have never been hijacked. The registrant in the case did everything right: paid bills, didn't abuse the domain name, a model domainer. There is clearly something very wrong with the way registrant identities are verified (or not) and a lack of procedure on ICANN's end for dealing with these domain customer issues. Obviously, the Twitter issue is beyond our prevue but the domain theft here could happen to anyone of us. In Buenos Aires I presented two cases to At-Large: 1) A non-English-speaking community group in Asia/Pacific who has their domain hijacked and did not even know where to begin to get help and 2) The case of Frederick Harris who claims he brought his hijacking case to Compliance and was turned away: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131021_icann_can_not_be_trusted_to_protect_d omain_registrants/ There are multiple problems here starting with the registrant's information not being protected, to using payment systems as identification, to registrant education, to poor customer service, to a lack of process at ICANN, etc. etc. I'm calling here for the beginning of a true look into the problem, it's extent, and possible solutions. Thanks, Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 "If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale" -Polybius

3 3