April 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

GNSO statement on Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation - Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

Please find attached the GNSO statement on the Multistakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel. A really good read! Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial
by Raf Fatani April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

I agree with Leon and happy to help him with this. Raf Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 15:39 Dear all, I like Olivier’s idea and support Alan’s suggested statement. On another track, I believe that we also need to make a statement on the final document, apart from the CCWG submission. I will gladly hold the pen to draft that statement if you are ok with it and consider we should make a statement. all the best, León El 30/04/2014, a las 03:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> escribió: > Dear Evan, > > that's not what the Public Comment period is about. It asks about the > Statement of the CCWG which was sent to NetMundial. I support Alan's > suggestion to have a short Statement endorsing the CCWG's report but we > cannot use this to congratulate organizers and participants in a meeting. > > That said, we can include in the Statement that we support the operation > of the WG, we welcome the funding of participants to NetMundial and call > upon ICANN to continue supporting participants financially in future > meetings like NetMundial and the Internet Governance Forum. > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 30/04/2014 07:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> Actually, now that the conference is over I believe that a new ALAC >> response is in order; one that congratulates the organizers and the >> participants for their innovation in approaching governance. We should >> (IMO) also endorse the final statement (while indicating areas where we >> would have preferred stronger language). >> >> I am happy to help craft such a statement, when I return from dealing with >> personal matters at the end of this week. >> On Apr 29, 2014 11:54 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >>> I have re-read the statement submitted to NETmundial. I believe that the >>> ALAC can easily say that it supports the process by which this statement >>> was developed as well as the full contents. >>> >>> However, as events unfolded, with the exception of the concept of >>> multistakeholderism, the issues on which the CCWG statement raised were not >>> the issues that NETmundial focused on, nor were they central to the >>> NETmundial outcomes document. In consideration of that and the lack of any >>> other public comments submitted, I believe that there is no need for the >>> ALAC to submit a statement. >>> >>> Should the ALAC nonetheless feel that a submission is necessary, I suggest: >>> >>> The ALAC would like to go on record as supporting the process that the >>>> CCWG followed in drafting this statement, and supports the CCWG statement >>>> submitted to NETmundial. >>>> >>> See https://community.icann.org/x/lzbRAg >>> >>> Alan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ >>> Advisory+Committee+(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… >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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…

1 0

Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

I have re-read the statement submitted to NETmundial. I believe that the ALAC can easily say that it supports the process by which this statement was developed as well as the full contents. However, as events unfolded, with the exception of the concept of multistakeholderism, the issues on which the CCWG statement raised were not the issues that NETmundial focused on, nor were they central to the NETmundial outcomes document. In consideration of that and the lack of any other public comments submitted, I believe that there is no need for the ALAC to submit a statement. Should the ALAC nonetheless feel that a submission is necessary, I suggest: >The ALAC would like to go on record as supporting the process that >the CCWG followed in drafting this statement, and supports the CCWG >statement submitted to NETmundial. See https://community.icann.org/x/lzbRAg Alan

4 3

ALAC Statement on the ICANN Strategy Panels
by Holly Raiche April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

Hi Everyone I have revised the statement on the Strategy Panels so it is in a form that can be seen as an ALAC statement, and now takes into account comments made both by Olivier and Alan (this morning) It’s on the ALAC policy page Happy reading Holly

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] R: The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo
by Sébastien Bachollet April 26, 2014

April 26, 2014

Thanks http://fr.euronews.com/2014/04/25/netmundial-internet-doit-etre-libre-et-sa ns-espionnage/ In French ;) Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> Le 25/04/2014 18:29, « Roberto Gaetano » <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> a écrit : >This is an excellent document. >I found in it most of the things that we have pushed for for years. >As far of the form, it reveals a little cutting and pasting from different >sources, but is even better like this, it shows that there was not a >single >hand holding the pen. >Incidentally, I saw earlier this evening the Euronews channel, there were >nice close-ups of you (Christopher) and our ALAC Director, Sébastien. I >guess it was a "hommage" to European participants to NETmundial. >The only point that made me raise an eyebrow was the mention by Rousseff >of >"multilateral" agreements. >Last but not least, kudos to Janis Karklins, former GAC Chair and former >ICANN Director, who will now be in charge of the IGF. >Maybe when participants to this event have recovered from the >tour-de-force, >some comments to the list would be appreciated. >Cheers, >R. > ><sorry for the cross-posting, but I believe that this is important also >for >other regions> > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- >> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Christopher Wilkinson >> Inviato: venerdì 25 aprile 2014 12:12 >> A: Discussion for At-Large Europe >> Oggetto: [EURO-Discuss] The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo >> >> >> > >> > http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial- >> Multistakeholder-Document.pdf >> > >> > Good morning: >> > >> > This is the historic result of the NET Mundial meeting, adopted last >night >> with reservations from certain participants >> >> (Russia, India, Cuba and - to differing degrees from parts of Civil >Society). >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > CW >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] R: The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo
by Nigel Hickson April 26, 2014

April 26, 2014

Roberto Greetings to you; we missed you. Kudos indeed to Janis but also to Markus Kummer who displayed his tactical genius in securing - in the margins of the High level Committee - a compromise on Human Rights and Intermediary liability. Best Nigel On 4/25/14 6:29 PM, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >This is an excellent document. >I found in it most of the things that we have pushed for for years. >As far of the form, it reveals a little cutting and pasting from different >sources, but is even better like this, it shows that there was not a >single >hand holding the pen. >Incidentally, I saw earlier this evening the Euronews channel, there were >nice close-ups of you (Christopher) and our ALAC Director, Sébastien. I >guess it was a "hommage" to European participants to NETmundial. >The only point that made me raise an eyebrow was the mention by Rousseff >of >"multilateral" agreements. >Last but not least, kudos to Janis Karklins, former GAC Chair and former >ICANN Director, who will now be in charge of the IGF. >Maybe when participants to this event have recovered from the >tour-de-force, >some comments to the list would be appreciated. >Cheers, >R. > ><sorry for the cross-posting, but I believe that this is important also >for >other regions> > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- >> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Christopher Wilkinson >> Inviato: venerdì 25 aprile 2014 12:12 >> A: Discussion for At-Large Europe >> Oggetto: [EURO-Discuss] The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo >> >> >> > >> > http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial- >> Multistakeholder-Document.pdf >> > >> > Good morning: >> > >> > This is the historic result of the NET Mundial meeting, adopted last >night >> with reservations from certain participants >> >> (Russia, India, Cuba and - to differing degrees from parts of Civil >Society). >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > CW >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- Webinar: Briefing About the Upcoming Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
by Alan Greenberg April 24, 2014

April 24, 2014

The next series of organizational reviews is starting and the GNSO is first. If anyone is interested in what will be happening, see the following webinar announcement. Alan > >News Alert > > > ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm > >---------- > > >Webinar: Briefing About the Upcoming Review of >the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) > > > >23 April 2014 > >Date: Wednesday, 7 May 2014 Time: 13:00-14:00 >UTC (time converter: ><http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…) > >You are invited to a webinar regarding the >upcoming Review of the Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO). This briefing will provide >the GNSO community with information about the >GNSO review process, collect feedback from the >community and answer questions concerning this process. > >The webinar will be recorded and available for >those who may not be able to join the session live. > > >Review of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) > > > >The objective of the Review is to examine >organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, >including its structure components (GNSO >Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder >Groups and Constituencies). The review will be >tightly scoped based on objective and >quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > >The work methods are expected to include the >examination of documentation, records and >reports; outcomes from the 360 Assessment; and >limited interviews. The 360 Assessment is an >online mechanism to collect and summarize >feedback from members of the GNSO community a >"self-review relative to objective and >quantifiable criteria. Interested members of >other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also >may offer feedback. Relevant assessments of the >Second Accountability and Transparency Review >Team 1 regarding the GNSO policy development >process will be factored into the review. > > >GNSO and community participation > > > >Involvement of the GNSO community as well as >input and participation from the broader >community are important components of this review process. > >As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the >Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is >requesting that a GNSO Review Working Party be >assembled to function as a liaison between the >GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to >provide input on review criteria and the 360 >Assessment, coordinate interviews and >objectively supply clarification and responses >to the draft findings and recommendations. Once >a final report is issued and the Board takes >action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >Working Party is expected to coordinate with the >GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan >and champion implementation of improvement >activities. More information about this will be provided shortly. > > >Review Criteria > > > >Objective and quantifiable criteria will cover the following areas: > * Achievement of mission, compliance with agreed upon rules and processes > * Accountability and transparency to the public > * Membership processes and participation > * Structural support toward achievement of mission > * Governance and management: effectiveness of execution > * Quality and evaluation/measurement of outcomes > * Communication > * Effectiveness of implementation of prior review recommendations > > >Webinar Details > > > >Please join the webinar on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 >at 13:00-14:00 UTC (time converter: ><http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…) >The webinar will be recorded and available for >those who may not be able to join the session live. > >The webinar will be run in an Adobe Connect room >with a brief slide presentation to frame >interactive discussion, along with a dial-in >conference bridge for audio. The session will be conducted in English. > >Please register via email to ><mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org>matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org >by Tuesday, 6 May 2014 23:59 UTC too receive >the dial-in details. A reminder with log-in and >dial-in details will be sent to you prior to the call. > > >Webinar Materials > > > >Wednesday, 7 May 2014: > * Recording: TBP > * Transcript: TBP > * Chat Transcript: TBP > > >This message was sent to alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca from: > >ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

2nd level IDN names
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2014

April 20, 2014

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/rslc-gop-request-18apr14-… http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/i-registry-onl-request-11… http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/pir-xn--i1b6b1a6a2e-reque… are requests for approval to allow IDN 2nd level names. I hadn't realized that a special request was required for this, even if the TLD is IDN! Alan

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on Maximal Starting Repertoire
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 19, 2014

April 19, 2014

Colleagues, A draft statement regarding the implementation of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules Project and the Maximal Starting Repertoire is pasted at the bottom of this mail and posted on the At-Large Policy Development wiki - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47257418# The draft is prepared based on observations as well as input gathered from language community representatives during the At-Large IDN Working Group meeting in Singapore, which was co-chaired by Edmon Chung and myself. Please comment on the wiki. Best regards, Rinalia *ALAC Statement on **IDN Variant TLDs – LGR Procedure Implementation – Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1* The ALAC notes the progress made in the implementation of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) Project, specifically: - Issuance of the Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1 by the Integration Panel; - Completion of a standardized XML format to represent Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone; - Responses from Language Communities in forming script Generation Panels. We recognize that the project is crucial for ensuring that the Root Zone is able to support IDN variants, which are applicable for major languages used by the global population of Internet users. We are greatly encouraged by the success of the Arabic script community in forming a Generation Panel to address a script that is shared by many languages across Africa, North Africa, East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East. We are also heartened by indications of mobilization by the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indic communities towards forming their script Generation Panels. Based on our observations as well as feedback received from various language communities, we wish to highlight some issues of concern that require urgent attention in moving the project forward. *Meeting Demand for IDN TLD* The Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1 covers 18 scripts requested by new IDN gTLD applicants. The Generation Panels already formed and in the process of being formed do not match the demand. We view the lack of response from the Cyrillic, Greek, Georgian, Hebrew, Lao, Latin and Thai communities as of the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore to be a matter of concern. We urge ICANN to take action to address the gap. Our recommendations to the ICANN IDN Variant TLD Program Team: - Work together with the ICANN Global Stakeholder Engagement Team and reach out to the target language communities to raise their awareness about the project and encourage Generation Panel formation. - Provide a briefing to the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Country Code Top Level Domain community and regional associations as well as the At-Large Regional Organizations to seek their support in reaching out to the target communities. - Work with the ICANN Communications Team to simplify key documents related to the Root Zone Project to aid community understanding and community-initiated outreach. - As part of the community briefing kit, provide concrete examples of how Generation Panels can be formed by sharing/highlighting the successful experience of Generation Panel/s already formed. - Facilitate or enable appropriate facilitation to support the collaboration of language communities that share a script to form a Generation Panel or for communities with related scripts to resolve joint issues if a request for facilitation is received. - Leverage on the Internet Governance Forum (global and regional) to widen awareness about the project and the need for language community participation. *Feedback on Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1* We commend the Integration Panel for producing a Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR) in a format that is easy for language communities to understand and manage. The MSR clearly outlines the set of code points that is ineligible for the Root Zone. It also clearly outlines the set of code points that the Integration Panel has defined as possible for inclusion as well as those that should be excluded based on provided rationale. We note that the MSR will serve as a “fixed collection of code points from which Generation Panels may make a selection in constructing the repertoire for their respective LGR proposals” based on what the Integration Panel has determined to be possible for inclusion. We also note that the Integration Panel intends to “freeze” the MSR version 1 after this call for public comment. We advise against freezing script segments of the MSR without receiving sufficient input from language communities (i.e., via a script Generation Panel or from the script community in general if no Generation Panel has been established). For subsequent versions of the MSR and LGR, we support the suggestion that there be a designated release timeline (i.e., a designated time period for release of updated versions where language communities can plan their submissions as well as expect updates to be published). We also request that the Integration Panel provides confirmation that subsequent versions of the MSR may include a superset or expanded set of possible code points based on the review and input received from language communities. END

1 0

ALAC & Regional Leaders SOIs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Hello everyone, just to let you know that Ken Bour is currently performing some essential maintenance on our SOI Wiki pages, so you might receive some emails notifying you of his changes. Please be so kind to ignore these emails as it is an entirely standard but needed procedure. Kind regards, Olivier

1 0