May 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Public Comment on Board Liaison compensation
by Alan Greenberg May 28, 2014

May 28, 2014

What I thought Olivier saidwas that I would post my original statement to the wiki, and then based on the other input, the ALAC would either support the statement or would create a different statement of its own. If the former is chosen, I can certain draft the "The ALAC supports Alan's statement". If it is to be different, then that is not in my court - I already said what I think was important. Maybe I got it wrong. Olivier?? Alan At 28/05/2014 12:49 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >Dear Alan, > >What I understood from yesterdays call is that >you make a first draft (on the wiki) not on your >behalf, but on behalf of ALAC, and people >comment. If there is consensus, ALAC will send it as ALAC position. Am I wrong? > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg >Envoyé : mardi 27 mai 2014 16:59 >À : ALAC Working List >Objet : [ALAC] Public Comment on Board Liaison compensation > >Regarding: >https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-… > >As discussed on the ALAC call today, I will be posting the following >statement (subject to minor editing) to the ICANN Public Comment. > >I encourage anyone who supports this to submit a comment to ><mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14@icann.org>Submit >Comment to Forum. I also understand that the ALAC is itself may >submit a statement as well (either support or a separate statement). > >------------------ > >I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am >making this comment purely in my own capacity. > >I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is >reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the >level of compensation suggested is reasonable. > >I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an >increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as >much as 29%. > >However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, >cannot be ignored. > >- One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that >having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make >themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never >been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often >competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly >says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting >Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified >candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would >be good to see hard evidence of the rationale. > >- The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between >Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change >widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board >members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats >into their other professional activities and personal life. However, >the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in the >community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of hours >as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the >community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I >believe that this claim is accurate. > >SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of >commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are >others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board >members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN. > >Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of >the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of the >ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment for non-Chairs need not be >financial compensation - there are a host of other benefits that >Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate. > >Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put >Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level >contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the >privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be >repercussions. > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > >---------- >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection ><http://www.avast.com/>Antivirus avast! est active.

2 2

Public Comment on Board Liaison compensation
by Alan Greenberg May 28, 2014

May 28, 2014

Regarding: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-… As discussed on the ALAC call today, I will be posting the following statement (subject to minor editing) to the ICANN Public Comment. I encourage anyone who supports this to submit a comment to <mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14@icann.org>Submit Comment to Forum. I also understand that the ALAC is itself may submit a statement as well (either support or a separate statement). ------------------ I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am making this comment purely in my own capacity. I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the level of compensation suggested is reasonable. I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as much as 29%. However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, cannot be ignored. - One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would be good to see hard evidence of the rationale. - The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats into their other professional activities and personal life. However, the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I believe that this claim is accurate. SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN. Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment for non-Chairs need not be financial compensation - there are a host of other benefits that Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate. Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be repercussions.

4 3

Re: [ALAC] Public Comment on Board Liaison compensation
by Alan Greenberg May 28, 2014

May 28, 2014

Thanks Carlton. Please add your two cents worth to the PC. Alan At 27/05/2014 07:17 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Thanks for this Alan. Closely reasoned and entirely rational and reasonable. > >I just had a situation with an At-Large outreach trip to Suriname - >I've been going to the damn place back when what passed for a classy >hotel had a caiman come up from the ditch running alongside sumbitch >so familiar he had a name, just sitting there, lollygaging in the >sun on the path separating me from the bungalow and dining! - that >makes me seethe with irritation! There seems to be an apprehension >I was looking for a handout, on account it is such a salubrious >la-de-da destination, maybe like say, Paris in the springtime (which >I don't much like anyways)! > >You have my support and I'd be honoured to sign this with you. > >-Carlton > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Regarding: ><https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-…>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-… > >As discussed on the ALAC call today, I will be posting the following >statement (subject to minor editing) to the ICANN Public Comment. > >I encourage anyone who supports this to submit a comment to ><mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14@icann.org>Submit >Comment to Forum. I also understand that the ALAC is itself may >submit a statement as well (either support or a separate statement). > >------------------ > >I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am >making this comment purely in my own capacity. > >I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is >reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the >level of compensation suggested is reasonable. > >I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an >increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as >much as 29%. > >However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, >cannot be ignored. > >- One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that >having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make >themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never >been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often >competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly >says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting >Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified >candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would >be good to see hard evidence of the rationale. > >- The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between >Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change >widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board >members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats >into their other professional activities and personal life. However, >the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in >the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of >hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the >community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I >believe that this claim is accurate. > >SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of >commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are >others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board >members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN. > >Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of >the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of >the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment for non-Chairs need not be >financial compensation - there are a host of other benefits that >Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate. > >Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put >Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level >contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the >privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be >repercussions. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)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+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Public Comment on Board Liaison compensation
by Alan Greenberg May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

The comment is now posted. The only change was to remove "for non-Chairs" from the second to last paragraph. It sounded like I was demanding Chair compensation, and although I might support that, it was not the intent of this comment. Alan At 27/05/2014 11:58 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Regarding: >https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-… > >As discussed on the ALAC call today, I will be posting the following >statement (subject to minor editing) to the ICANN Public Comment. > >I encourage anyone who supports this to submit a comment to ><mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14@icann.org>Submit >Comment to Forum. I also understand that the ALAC is itself may >submit a statement as well (either support or a separate statement). > >------------------ > >I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am >making this comment purely in my own capacity. > >I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is >reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the >level of compensation suggested is reasonable. > >I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an >increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as >much as 29%. > >However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, >cannot be ignored. > >- One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that >having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make >themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never >been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often >competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly >says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting >Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified >candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would >be good to see hard evidence of the rationale. > >- The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between >Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change >widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board >members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats >into their other professional activities and personal life. However, >the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in >the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of >hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the >community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I >believe that this claim is accurate. > >SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of >commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are >others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board >members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN. > >Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of >the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of >the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment for non-Chairs need not be >financial compensation - there are a host of other benefits that >Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate. > >Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put >Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level >contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the >privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be >repercussions.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] The Problem of IDNs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 21, 2014

May 21, 2014

Hello, everyone. I trust that you have seen the CircleID article on Universal Acceptance of All TLDs by Stephane Van Gelder and the APTLD Oman meeting report on IDN, which I circulated earlier today. Next milestones to move the agenda forward on this issue for the At-Large: 1. ATLAS II Summit - the frame of the agenda could not be changed at this point for Saturday and Sunday (21-22 June). I would suggest that the issue be brought up by community members from the floor in relevant sessions so that others can be made aware of what this issue means to users of the global Internet. 2. A 30 mins briefing and discussion will be held on Monday 23rd June 2014 during the ALAC Meeting Hot Topic 3 - Universal Acceptance of IDNs - with Edmon Chung and Rinalia Abdul Rahim (16:45-17:15) (Moderator: Olivier Crépin-Leblond). 3. ICANN-staff organized session on the topic of Universal Acceptance - I expect a session will be held in London. Do attend that session as well to provide input to ICANN from the end user's perspective. Best regards, Rinalia

2 5

Update on IANA Stewardship Transition Work
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

Latest from Fadi on IANA Stewardship Transition. http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/transition-from-u-s-government-has-four-work-… Rinalia

1 0

Universal Acceptance of All TLDs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

FYI > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140519_universal_acceptance_of_all_tlds_now/ > > > > A piece by Stéphane Van Gelder on Universal Acceptance of TLDs. > > > > > > Universal acceptance of top level domains hasn't really meant much to most Internet users up until now. As long as .COM was basically the default TLD, there wasn't much of an issue. > > > > No longer. With 263 delegated strings (according to ICANN's May 12, 2014 statistics) adding to the existing 22 gTLDs that were already live on the net after the 2004 round of Internet namespace expansion, the problem of universal acceptance gets very real. > > > > What is the issue? Being able to use any TLD with any browser (Safari, Chrome, Firefox...) or email client (outlook, Apple mail...), no matter what the environment (Mac, Windows...). Non-ASCII Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) have made the issue even more crucial because universal acceptance is needed to fulfil their promise: giving millions of people who use different keyboards and scripts access to an "own language" Internet use they've never been able to experience up until now. > > > > Non-Latin script TLDs are considered one of the most important Internet naming innovations of the last decade because they are key to reducing the digital divide between those who are comfortable typing ASCII web addresses and those who are not. Those whose native alphabets are Chinese, Arabic, Cyrillic or others have jumped at the chance to type their own scripts into the address bars. The high registration volumes reached by IDN ccTLDs like .рф (Romanised as .RF for Russian Federation) or more recently the Chinese character new gTLDs launched by TLD Registry .在线 (.ONLINE) and .中文网 (.WEBSITE) are clear indications of the pent-up demand for non-Latin script web addresses. > > > > > > Ensuring new web addresses can be used everywhere, by everyone > > > > Because they are that important, ICANN's new gTLD program has given deliberate priority to IDNs. The 104 applications for non-Latin script TLDs were allowed a faster track through the evaluation and delegation process if they wanted it. > > > > Despite that, most new gTLDs that have gone live so far are of the traditional ASCII kind. But as TLD Registry's suffixes show, the Internet is not going to stay all-Latin for long. Others also have ambitious plans to bring Internet navigation to new audiences using different alphabets. Stable Tone is one such registry operator. It will soon be launching 世界, (.WORLD in Chinese) with an innovative plan to bring international brands to Chinese audiences. > > > > Without universal acceptance, those plans will suffer. The products will be out there, but their intended audiences won't actually be able to use them. Why? Because in many ways, the Internet still works as if there had never been an expansion of its namespace. There are 3 main issues. > > > > Internet browsers tend to carry out summary checks when a destination is typed into their address bars. Some browsers will actually filter out anything that doesn't resemble the "classic" TLDs. Type www.example.guru, one of the new TLDs that is already proving very popular, and browsers expecting .COM or something similar will either tack that suffix on the end and search for www.example.guru.com, or take the user to a search engine to try and "help". > > > > The rate of expansion is also an issue. In 2004, only a very limited number of TLDs were added to the Internet root. So as suffixes like .BIZ and .INFO came online, browser developers had time to adjust. But the new gTLD program means an increase of several orders of magnitude for the number of TLDs becoming valid Internet namespaces. How can developers of browser, email and other Internet services keep up? > > > > IDNs have brought a third universal acceptance issue. Users must be able to type, and see, their URLs in the intended native script. If it's a Chinese address, you should be able to type that in as easily as if it was ASCII. Having to resort to some kind of encoder to get the Chinese script complicates the user experience to such an extent that there's a risk users simply won't bother. And that could ultimately mean the failure of IDN TLDs that, ironically, Internet users actually want. > > > > There's a fourth, slightly separate but equally important issue: mobile device use. Browsing and emailing environments tend to be even more technically limited on smartphones and tablets than they are on desktop computers. Yet those are the devices which the next billion Internet users, those that stand to benefit from new TLDs and especially IDNs, are most likely to use. > > > > All that leads to a situation where currently, there is a lack of universal acceptance for these new TLDs. Take those mentioned earlier. A web address like 房地产.在线 (RealEstate.online) simply isn't reachable using the majority of web browsers running on PCs and mobile devices in China. A part-ASCII address like nic.在线 has the same issues. > > > > Chinese data shows that around 50% of the browsers used in the country are not compatible with Chinese IDN gTLDs and that on mobile devices, tha vast majority of the browsers available aren't compatible. > > > > > > Single focus > > > > So what to do? Awareness of the problem isn't new. ICANN, for instance, has been working on it since 2004, when it opened a discussion forum on universal acceptance, and even before. Technically there are no major hurdles to universal acceptance. For example, the technology needed to correctly render IDN web addresses was developed even before the new gTLD program, when work was being done on the IDN ccTLD program designed to give a path to non-ASCII country codes to countries such as Russia, where .рф is considered the second national suffix after the ASCII .RU. > > > > The major stumbling block for universal acceptance today is probably coordination. And let's face it, that's an area where organisations like ICANN have traditionally not been very strong. ICANN, the technical community's IETF, and others, are very good at taking on a variety of problems at once. They are not so good at focusing their collective energies on a single problem. > > > > Yet that's exactly what's needed to guarantee universal acceptance. Across-the-board efforts targeting all aspects of this one problem. For example, if technical operators such as browser developers are not made sufficiently aware of new gTLDs by the governance community, then how can they be expected to adapt their products to suit? > > > > It's incumbent on the technical and governance communities to ensure that demand is met. Disappoint these non-ASCII hopefuls now, and new gTLDs as a whole will suffer the consequences.

1 0

Report from the High Level Panel
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

FYI > > Global Panel Announces New Approach to Managing Future of the Internet | Final Report Addresses Growing Interests in Internet Governance > > Click here to view the report » [PDF, 2.7 MB] > > The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms—a global Panel of prominent stakeholders from diverse organizations and governments—today released key recommendations on how to evolve the Internet governance (IG) ecosystem to accommodate global needs for collaboration, interconnectivity and Internet growth. The report also presents a roadmap and timeline for the future management of the Internet. > > The report follows the Panel's third and final meeting, hosted by the World Economic Forum in Dubai on 4-5 May. It adopts the IG principles established at NETmundial, the recent Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil. The Panel believes these principles— human rights, culture and linguistic diversity, security and stability, and open unfragmented space, among others—are fundamental to implementing a 21st century model of Internet governance. > > "It has been an honor to serve as the chair of this distinguished Panel, representing a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations," said Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia and chairman of the Panel. "We intend for the Panel's work to contribute to the global discussion on how to preserve freedom of expression of the Internet." > > For the past six months, the Panel has worked to characterize key components for promoting a collaborative, decentralized IG ecosystem—one that can effectively meet the burgeoning needs and interests of Internet users globally, while ensuring networks' security and stability. The Panel identified needed Enablers—including forums and dialogues, expert communities and toolkits—to foster communication, legitimacy and effectiveness throughout the IG process, which the Panel defined in four elements: issue identification, solution mapping, solution formulation and solution implementation. > > "The Internet is an indispensable resource for its 3 billion users all around the world. Ensuring that it remains open and interoperable and that decision-making processes are carried out with the involvement of all stakeholders is critical to the future of the Internet and its continued success," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. > > "There is broad interest in how the Internet will be governed and by whom," said ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé. "The discussions at NETmundial reaffirmed the support and desire for a multistakeholder model of governance and served as an inspiration for the Panel's recommendations." > > To achieve a collaborative, decentralized IG ecosystem, the Panel recommends next steps mapped against a three-year timeline that include coalescing and supporting broad multistakeholder alliances; developing new and strengthening existing IG mechanisms; and progressing collaborative decision-making. Recognizing the evolving IG dialogue and process, the Panel also identified specific additional questions that will need answers moving forward, and encouraged the global community to weigh in with its responses. > > The Panel was convened by ICANN and the World Economic Forum (WEF), with assistance from The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. It met during a series of virtual and in-person meetings between November 2013 to May 2014 in London, Rancho Mirage, Calif., and Dubai. The Panel encourages the global community to refine its roadmap through ongoing discussions and forums, including the upcoming Global Commission on Internet Governance. > > Click here to learn more about the London meeting » > > Click here to learn more about the Sunnylands meeting » > > "In the spirit of WEF's global citizenship, it has been important to partner with the Panel on the timely and momentous issue of Internet governance," said Alan Marcus, senior director and head of Information Technology and Telecommunications Industries at the WEF. "The Internet will continue to grow exponentially in the years to come, and it will be necessary to chart a path forward that allows for equitable opportunity for current and future users." > > Members of The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms include: > > Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 > Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies > Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company > Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation > Kathy Brown, President and CEO, Internet Society > Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda > Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society > Fadi Chehadé, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive > Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications > Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority > Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament > Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development > Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway > Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria > Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board > Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) > Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet > Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications > Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group > Christoph Steck, Director Public Policy & Internet, Telefonica > Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation > Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics > > For more information on the Panel, please contact: Holli Holsan at Holli.Holsan(a)edelman.com or visit: www.internetgovernancepanel.org.

1 0

Fwd: [icann-board] Fwd: FYI, blog published
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

ALAC, >From Steve Crocker: http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/feedback-encouraged-on-icanns-draft-five-year… Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
by Garth Bruen May 19, 2014

May 19, 2014

I want to thank everyone for helping move this along, especially Alan who dug into the details. This took THREE YEARS to get to. Yes, the first complaint about this issue with BizCn was June 2011. The complaints were repeatedly dismissed by Compliance. While it may seem a victory for them to finally get a breach notice, it was a shameful process getting here. While ICANN may argue that things have changed, nothing has changed in terms of facts, only the attitude of the organization has changed. We can cheer this, but there are bigger problems underneath. The way I see it there are two big questions: 1. Why, from June 2011 to March 2013 did they refuse to investigate the facts of the case, even going so far as to say the data had been verified? 2. Will the Ombudsman re-open the investigation into the matter? The failure of this office to conduct a factual investigation points to a grave loss of accountability within ICANN. Sincerely, Garth -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:44 PM To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar Note that the non-compliant issues 1, 2 and 3 are all associated with an audit to ensure that registries comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the result of the PEDNR PDP that ALAC initiated and saw through. Compliance has been citing a number of registrars in recent days over these issues. It is worthy of note that for some of the Whois accuracy issues that we raised, they fixed these by moving the "proxy service" from non-existent French addresses and non-existent e-mail addresses to a new address is Moscow (probably valid based on Google) and a new e-mail address that at least has a valif domain name. All "interesting" to say the least. One thing I noted that we may want to act on. The e-mail domain address associated with this Russian proxy service is registered via the same proxy service. Holly: Should this be allowed under the new P/P rules being developed. Or even registering their contact address via ANOTHER P/P service. Shoe we make an additional statement to the WG? Alan At 08/05/2014 10:06 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear All, > >BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues >raised by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach notice. >See >http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-e >n.pdf > >Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular >registrar appear to have been included in the breach notice, including >the systemic Whois inaccuracy complaints. > >Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results. > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh >_______________________________________________ >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+(ALA C)

3 3