June 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

Please be so kind to also consider the email below, which includes the proposed text. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:20:01 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com) <ocl(a)gih.com> Olivier, Are you aware of this joint community statement under development (below)? I think we have a very unique opportunity, perhaps even unprecedented, for the community to come together around a common position and sign on to a statement calling for meaningful accountability reform. From all conversations I’ve had this week, there seems to be strong consensus around the principles outlined in the draft statement, and I think this is a critical issue for all of us. Do you have a sense of whether the ALAC might be able to join the GNSO (and possibly the ccNSO) and sign on before Thursday’s public forum? Happy to discuss when we both find a few free minutes. Also, not sure if you saw this from yesterday’s Board-GAC session, but /Fadi is attempting to reverse his NetMundial position on the interdependence of IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability:/ / / /NETMUDIAL/ /"These two processes are very interrelated. I may have used the word in the past 'separate'. I take that word back. They are related processes. They will run in parallel but they will inform each other. They are interdependent, they're interrelated, and if we are successful, we should get these processes to work on the same timeline."/ / / /YESTERDAY (DURING BOARD-GAC MEETING)/ /“I acknowledge the statement from the EU and assure them the accountability process will be very important. It is currently open and this is a time for you to contribute. We have to be careful how we tie this to the transition as there are elements in the community who want to delay the transition. This should not be about interdependence between the two processes but about them being interrelated./ Thanks and regards, Keith BEGIN TEXT: The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of “the world,” nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board’s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN’s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 2

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Request for Comments: Draft Roadmap for Universal Acceptance of TLDs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014

Dear Satish, thanks for picking up the pen on this. The At-Large Policy Development WIKI page on this topic is on: https://community.icann.org/x/FrDhAg Comments will be collected by commenting on the WIKI page or on the mailing lists. This is also where the first draft of the Statement as coordinated by you, will appear. Kind regards, Olivier On 30/06/2014 14:43, Satish Babu wrote: > Dear all > ICANN has invited comments from the community on the Universal Acceptance > Initiative draft roadmap, available here: > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/tld-acceptance-initiative-2014-06-18-… > > The draft builds on the goal that "...domain names in a TLD must be useable > in applications regardless of the written script and length or newness of > the TLD", and aims to address UA challenges of all new TLDs including IDNs. > > The draft document is available for comments until 18 July 2014. Kindly > provide visibility for this very important initiative amongst your own TLD, > IDN, and language community groups. > > > > > > > > satish > > -- > Satish Babu > APRALO/ICANN > _______________________________________________ > IDN-WG mailing list > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy >

1 0

ALAC reps on Coordinating Committee?
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014

Hi Everyone I've lost a bit of visability on this one - and being asked who are the ALAC reps for the coordinating committee - or are we waiting for a nominating committee to be formed to select people? I have been asked and admit don't know where we are up to. And given the timelines - which are running out - I'd like to remind myself (and us all for that matter) what has to be done and by when THanks Holly

4 3

At-Large Engagement in RIR Policy Development - Issue Raised in Board Meeting with NRO/ASO today
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

ALAC and RALO Chairs, This morning the Board had a meeting with the NRO/ASO. The importance of At-Large community engagement in the policy development process of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) was raised and discussed. Context: ICANN's remit covers Names and Numbers. The policy development process for Names takes place at ICANN while the policy development process for Numbers takes places place at the RIRs. It is important to have end user engagement in both. The existence of RALO-RIR MOUs is noted, but concrete engagement needs to follow-through. Issues raised: 1. Co-location of face-to-face meetings (i.e., RALO meeting in conjunction with RIR meeting) and need for ICANN funding to supplement RIR Fellowship funding. 2. Pre-meeting orientation program for ALSes to help them understand the structure and processes of the RIR before participating in the RIR meeting (face-to-face or remotely) 3. Focused participation in the Policy Development Track at RIR meetings + remote participation for those that cannot be on site 4. Participation in RIR Policy Development mailing-list (substance of RIR policy development is discussed via mailing-lists) - suggestion: RIR notification/alerts on Policy Development to be sent to RALO mailing lists so ALSes can prepare for engagement. My suggestion on follow-up: Leverage on the momentum created by the board's discussion with the NRO - RALO Chairs can follow-up with RIR Chairs respectively - RALO Chairs can discuss within RALOs on whether groups need to be formed to focus on numbers policy among ALSes - ALAC Chair can facilitate RALO interface with ICANN on funding issue Thanks! Rinalia

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANNAccountability?
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Hi Olivier (and everyone) I would support the principles of the statement - not necessarily the words. I think what we can all agree on would be more accountability - within ICANN itself, but also accountability of the board. I'm not sure people want external structures. What Group 4 came up with was a staanding entity of some kind that includes all the elements of the ICANN community (and perhaps wider although - personally - not sure how that would work. So can we have general words about accountability structure of the Board that is independent of the Board - without getting more specific Hope that helps Holly On Wed 25/06/14 5:02 PM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl(a)gih.com sent: Please be so kind to also consider the email below, which includes the proposed text. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:20:01 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com) Olivier, Are you aware of this joint community statement under development (below)? I think we have a very unique opportunity, perhaps even unprecedented, for the community to come together around a common position and sign on to a statement calling for meaningful accountability reform. From all conversations I’ve had this week, there seems to be strong consensus around the principles outlined in the draft statement, and I think this is a critical issue for all of us. Do you have a sense of whether the ALAC might be able to join the GNSO (and possibly the ccNSO) and sign on before Thursday’s public forum? Happy to discuss when we both find a few free minutes. Also, not sure if you saw this from yesterday’s Board-GAC session, but /Fadi is attempting to reverse his NetMundial position on the interdependence of IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability:/ / / /NETMUDIAL/ /"These two processes are very interrelated. I may have used the word in the past 'separate'. I take that word back. They are related processes. They will run in parallel but they will inform each other. They are interdependent, they're interrelated, and if we are successful, we should get these processes to work on the same timeline."/ / / /YESTERDAY (DURING BOARD-GAC MEETING)/ /“I acknowledge the statement from the EU and assure them the accountability process will be very important. It is currently open and this is a time for you to contribute. We have to be careful how we tie this to the transition as there are elements in the community who want to delay the transition. This should not be about interdependence between the two processes but about them being interrelated./ Thanks and regards, Keith BEGIN TEXT: The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of “the world,” nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board’s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN’s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [3]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

4 3

Fwd: ALAC join our Joint Statement?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find the email below from Steve DelBianco. Comments? Suggestions? Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ALAC join our Joint Statement? Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:00:58 +0000 From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Please Think about joining all of GNSO on this statement - to be delivered Thursday to the board Let me know soon as you can! -Steve The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of "the world," nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board's decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN's governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.

2 1

GAC, Geographical Indications and TMCH
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía June 24, 2014

June 24, 2014

Hello all, As you are aware, the discussion over .vin and .wine is something that has kept the GAC busy lately. As I understand it, the reason for this discussion is whether .vin and .wine should be delegated or not as they may pose a threat to countries that have an important wine industry. On the session we had with SO/ACs Chairs I didn’t have time to ask this question but anyway I posted it to the AC room chat and wanted to raise it on this list. The question is whether the GAC has considered or not, to ask the TMCH to include geographic indications to their set of intellectual property assets that can be protected through this mechanism rather than continue a discussion that can be endless. I would think that adding GIs to the TMCH structure could solve this problem and let .vin and .wine be delegated properly. What are your thoughts on this? All the best, León

4 3

Fwd: Re: [soac-chairs] URGENT: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO FORM A DRAFTING TEAM (IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 23, 2014

June 23, 2014

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [soac-chairs] URGENT: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO FORM A DRAFTING TEAM (IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:10:34 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info, 'Byron Holland' <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, soac-chairs(a)icann.org CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, 'Jonathan Robinson' <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> Dear Jonathan, thank you very much for this follow-up. Two ALAC members have volunteered to help in the drafting Team: - Tijani ben Jemaa (AFRALO) - Leon Sanchez (LACRALO) They are both CC'ed to this message & will hopefully be able to confirm today's attendance at 18h00 shortly. Kind regards, Olivier On 23/06/2014 14:39, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > > All, > > > > A reminder of the opportunity to have an initial gathering of Drafting > Team members. > > > > We plan to get together at 18h00 (London local time) in Sovereign. > > > > You may not have had the opportunity to nominate members yet. > > Even if you have not, please come along to give any initial input. > > > > Thank-you > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > *From:*Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca] > *Sent:* 17 June 2014 21:12 > *To:* soac-chairs(a)icann.org > *Cc:* Jonathan Robinson > *Subject:* [soac-chairs] URGENT: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO FORM A > DRAFTING TEAM (IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION) > > > > Dear SO/AC Chairs, > > > > We, the Chairs of the ccNSO and GNSO Council, would hereby like to > invite your organization to join a drafting team, tasked with drafting > the charter for a *Cross-Community Working Group to develop a Transfer > Process for the IANA Stewardship Role*. > > > > Based on conversations to date, we anticipate that the ALAC and SSAC > will join this effort and we sincerely hope that the ICANN's other > supporting organizations and advisory committees will also respond > positively to this initiative. The final draft charter will be > presented to at least each of the organizations participating in this > effort for their adoption, according to each organization's own rules > and procedures. > > > > Taking into account the principles outlined by the NTIA in its > announcement, we believe such a cross community working group, with > participation from and supported by the ICANN community as well as > other organizations, is the most appropriate way to develop a proposal > for a transition plan. > > > > Initial work by some members of the community resulted in a first > draft straw-man document, which is included here as an annex. We > believe this may help the drafting team in its efforts, but it is by > no means intended to prescribe, limit or restrict conversations, > though it is worth noting that some elements contained in the document > align with the current thinking of some ccNSO and GNSO members. We > anticipate that any final draft should address at a minimum: > > > > - Purpose and Scope (what is in and what is out of scope) > > - Goals and objectives > > - Deliverables > > - Timeline > > - Proposed approach (how is the WG expected to conduct its > work, reporting to chartering organizations) > > - Relationship with Coordination Group as proposed by ICANN > (see > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en) > > - Membership / sponsorship (should membership be limited, > open to anyone interested?) > > - Sponsorship / chartering organizations (should sponsorship > be restricted to ICANN structures or also extend to external > organizations?) > > - Staffing / support needed > > - Rules of engagement > > - Decision-making methodology (how are decisions made in the > WG and how are these reflected in the recommendations) > > - Process for review / adoption of proposal by chartering > organizations (also addressing what would happen if one of the > chartering organizations would not adopt the proposal) > > - Closure of the WG > > > > In order to be able to complete the drafting of the charter and share > it with the different organizations for consideration in a timely > manner, we would ask that each participating organization assign a > maximum of 4 representatives to the drafting team. > > > > To facilitate the work of the drafting team at its initial stages, we > are both available to serve as interim chairs of the charter drafting > team, if that is deemed to be helpful, and for as long as the drafting > team would like us to. > > > > Although the ICANN London meeting is very close, we recognize the > value of meeting face-to-face. Therefore we would like to organize an > informal meeting of the drafting team during the London ICANN meeting > and as such have identified Monday 23^June 2014, 17h00 UTC (18h00 > London) as a possible option to do so. We hope and would appreciate > if you could provide us with your feedback and the names of volunteers > (even it that would be on an interim basis until your organization has > formally assigned a representative to this drafting effort in > accordance with your own rules and procedures) by Sunday 22 June at > the latest. > > > > We look forward to receiving your feedback. > > > > > > Byron Holland & > Jonathan Robinson > > ccNSO Council Chair > GNSO Council Chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > soac-chairs mailing list > soac-chairs(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs

1 0

Fwd: [council] Fadi Chehade meeting with the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2014

June 22, 2014

>From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> >To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Fadi Chehade meeting with the GNSO >Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:56:04 +0100 > > > >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 21 June 2014 17:06 >To: fadi.chehade(a)icann.org >Cc: Cassia Oliveira (cassia.oliveira(a)icann.org) Theresa Swinehart >(theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org) >Subject: Meeting with the GNSO >Importance: High > >Hello Fadi, > >Facilitated by the Council, the GNSO has today discussed our planned >meetings with Theresa, you, the GDD and the ICANN Board tomorrow. > >We will be meeting with you immediately ahead of our meeting with >Theresa and you have been copied into the note describing the >desired scope of the discussion and issues arising. > >What we would like to cover with you is anything you may wish to >pick up on what we have discussed with Theresa on but specifically, >three issues: > >1. ICANN "Community Issues" >a. Undue pressure being placed on the community e.g. >timeframes being set too fast for public comment >b. This is connected with a pervasive sense of Workload / >Burnout combined with a concern for lack of volunteer recognition / >support / reward >c. The above points lead to a concern about the effective >current functioning of "the model" and the associated consequences >of such failings >2. ICANN Organisational Performance / Operational Excellence >(Gap between community expectations and actual experience) >a. From - Registries & NTAG >b. From - Registrars (inc ICANN Website, RADAR DB) >c. N.B. This is perceived to be not only a GNSO issue but one >that impacts everything that ICANN does >Operational excellence and perceived excellence will affect our >ability to provide the critical "defence" of the organisation >3. A letter has been sent to a 3rd party dispute resolution >provider (ICDR). >a. What's the rationale? > >b. Concern is that it is a form of political expediency >overriding accountability? >Thank-you for agreeing to meet with us and for considering this >detailed input. > >Best wishes, > > >Jonathan > > >

2 1

Fwd: Re: [council] Fadi Chehade meeting with the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg June 21, 2014

June 21, 2014

>Subject: Re: [council] Fadi Chehade meeting with the GNSO >From: Bret Fausett <bret(a)nic.sexy> >Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:12:29 +0100 >To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >Just for a point of reference, here is a letter that the registries >and new gTLD applicants sent to ICANN last week that touches on this >operational excellence theme: ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-malthouse-to-at…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/drazek-malthouse-to-at… > > Bret > >On Jun 21, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Jonathan Robinson ><<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: > >>2. ICANN Organisational Performance / Operational Excellence >>(Gap between community expectations and actual experience) >>a. From - Registries & NTAG > > > >

1 0