January 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

At-Large mailing list activity reports
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Jean-Jacques Subrenat has raised the issue of the At-Large mailing list reports generated weekly by Thomas Narten. An example is follows: Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 28.57% | 4 | 37.14% | 56728 | jjs at dyalog.net 21.43% | 3 | 22.75% | 34743 | jefsey at jefsey.com 14.29% | 2 | 10.51% | 16050 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 7.14% | 1 | 11.72% | 17899 | mcknight.glenn at gmail.com 7.14% | 1 | 5.16% | 7874 | hilyard at oyster.net.ck 7.14% | 1 | 5.06% | 7731 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 7.14% | 1 | 5.03% | 7687 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.14% | 1 | 2.63% | 4015 | at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 14 |100.00% | 152727 | Total I understand that Thomas produces similar reports for a number of other mailing lists including the main ietf list (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg91110.html) Jean-Jacques' questions along with my answers follow: - Was there a decision to task any particular individual/firm with carrying out this statistical/nominative tracking? Was this decision taken in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)? AG: The tallies were requested by the ALAC Chair. The message documenting this is part of our e-mail archive that is missing, but a copy of the message is attached. - Was this submitted to regular review and approval, or is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent authorization (date, reference)? AG: Soon after the statistics started, they were questioned with the perception that it violated peoples privacy. It was pointed out that the statistics were generated based on a public archive (which is also indexed by Google). I am not aware of any further concerns raised in the ensuing seven years. - If this is being used as a metrics tool, what is its qualitative relevance? Has it been effectively used to "measure" the value of this or that member, say in ALAC? How were the criteria determined, and by whom (date, reference)? AG: I believe that the original request was made because of a person regarded as a troll who was posting large numbers of messages. The summaries have proven useful from time to time and all e-mail programs have the ability to filter them out for those who do not wish to see them. QUESTION TO THE ALAC: I see no harm in continuing to have these statistics generated, and in fact, the Metrics WG has discussed doing something similar for other lists as well. Are there any ALAC who feel that we need to either curtail this practice or discuss it further? Alan

9 8

ATLAS II Recommendations
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Dear Fadi, Based on our conversation recently, could you kindly see if it is possible for the ICANN Senior Leadership Team to meet with the ALAC Leadership Team (in Singapore if time can be found or after Singapore) to review the ATLAS II recommendations for ICANN adoption and implementation? Some of the ATLAS II recommendations are not directed at the Board. They implicate Staff work areas such as stakeholder engagement and capacity building (outreach and inreach), policy development support, operational budget allocation, etc. These to my mind need not wait for Board review or acceptance. Staff are empowered to adopt ideas and recommendations that serve to strengthen ICANN and its community. Your support and staff engagement on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Follow up on ALAC Action Item
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear ALAC Members, An Action Item from the ALAC Meeting of 23 December 2014 was: Staff to find out when the new GAC leadership will be selected. We have now had a response from GAC support staff: "...all set as elected in LA and all on board. We also have overlap provisions, so two incumbents are leaving after Singapore." Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>

1 0

ICANN's risk management
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear ALAC, FYI: Board Risk Committee shared a document on ICANN's risk management with CCWG on Accountability. Publicly available at: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process… Best regards, Rinalia

4 8

Report on the ALAC-NGPC meeting on 22 Jan 2015
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

As previously announced, there was a meeting with a number of Board members from the New gTLD Process Committee last Thursday. Attending on behalf of the ALAC were Alan Greenberg, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Evan Leibovitch and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Holly Raiche could not attend due to a scheduling conflict. For the Board, there was Cherine Chalaby, George Sadowsky and Rinalia Abdul-Rahim who chaired the meeting. Chris Disspain and Markus Kummer were both unable to attend due to travel. Also in attendance was Heidi Ullrich, staff members supporting the Board and from the ICANN General Council's Office, Compliance and the Global Domains Division. It was a productive meeting and definitely not a "pat them on the head and pretend we care" event. All parties were extremely candid. The meeting opened with a brief review of the ALAC concerns, the rationale for us requesting the freeze, and a summary of possible paths forward. Based on the letter requesting the meeting, it was clear that the NGPC hoped that a GNSO PDP might be a possible way to resolve the impasse of critical TLDs not yet implementing all of the safeguards required by GAC advice through Public Interest Commitments (PICs). I believe that we made a convincing case that PICs were not likely even eligible for a PDP Consensus Policy (required to alter already signed contracts) and even if they were, the outcome would not likely be satisfactory. We also raised the issue of whether ICANN was willing to publicly commit to having compliance actively follow up on all complaints submitted by governments, consumer agencies and regulators - a critical part of ensuring that once PICs are made, that they are adhered to. Rinalia did not play an active part in the discussion, but was very effective in chairing the discussion. George was very supportive of our position and Cherine as NGPC chair took a balanced position but I think understood that something needs to be done. Everyone was quite candid. Overall, I think that there is good understanding that ICANN needs to at least try to fix the problem and can't just ignore it. That does not necessarily map to succeeding of course. It was clear that no one has a magic bullet - voluntary agreement from all concerned registries was unlikely, unilateral contract changes would be ugly, and it was unclear what could be done to entice most or all registries to fix the problem. And the Board is therefore in a difficult position with respect to the GAC, as well as the rest of us. Whether they will backtrack and at least imply that they are considering a freeze to force the issue was not discussed. I suggested a meeting of all parties (NGPC, ALAC, GAC, BC and perhaps Registries) in Singapore and Cherine seemed to think it might be a good idea. It remains to be seen if it will happen. The issues will be further discussed at the upcoming NGPC meeting, and the duration of that meeting was explicitly lengthened to ensure that there was adequate time for a thorough discussion. Overall, I was very pleased with the meeting. Despite the heavy presence of support staff, the meeting was frank and I believe productive. It sets a good precedent for such future engagements. Alan At 22/01/2015 07:11 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I'm waiting with bated breath... can you brief me on the meeting? > >RA > > >Ron Andruff >www.lifedotsport.com > > >-------- Original message -------- >From: Alan Greenberg >Date:01/21/2015 22:41 (GMT-05:00) >To: Ron Andruff ,'Evan Leibovitch' >Subject: Re: Any news from Thomas? > >NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION > >Not much to report. I did not get a chance to talk to him until >yesterday afternoon. Most of the GAC members who cared about the >subject were not on the call. Discussion effectively deferred until Singapore. > >Alan > >At 21/01/2015 01:47 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: >>Good afternoon, >> >>Checking in to see if you had a chance to speak with Thomas this >>weekend in FFT? >> >>I understand the NGPC-ALAC call is scheduled for tomorrow >>(Thursday). Any updates or other info to report by chance? >> >>Thank you in advance for your soonest response. >> >>Kind regards, >> >>RA >> >>Ron Andruff >>dotSport LLC >><http://www.lifedotsport.com>www.lifedotsport.com >>

2 1

RESEND: Report on the ALAC-NGPC meeting on 22 Jan 2015
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

This is a re-transmission of my earlier message without several messages incorrectly appended to the end. Please use this version instead. ======================= As previously announced, there was a meeting with a number of Board members from the New gTLD Process Committee last Thursday. Attending on behalf of the ALAC were Alan Greenberg, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Evan Leibovitch and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Holly Raiche could not attend due to a scheduling conflict. For the Board, there was Cherine Chalaby, George Sadowsky and Rinalia Abdul-Rahim who chaired the meeting. Chris Disspain and Markus Kummer were both unable to attend due to travel. Also in attendance was Heidi Ullrich, staff members supporting the Board and from the ICANN General Council's Office, Compliance and the Global Domains Division. It was a productive meeting and definitely not a "pat them on the head and pretend we care" event. All parties were extremely candid. The meeting opened with a brief review of the ALAC concerns, the rationale for us requesting the freeze, and a summary of possible paths forward. Based on the letter requesting the meeting, it was clear that the NGPC hoped that a GNSO PDP might be a possible way to resolve the impasse of critical TLDs not yet implementing all of the safeguards required by GAC advice through Public Interest Commitments (PICs). I believe that we made a convincing case that PICs were not likely even eligible for a PDP Consensus Policy (required to alter already signed contracts) and even if they were, the outcome would not likely be satisfactory. We also raised the issue of whether ICANN was willing to publicly commit to having compliance actively follow up on all complaints submitted by governments, consumer agencies and regulators - a critical part of ensuring that once PICs are made, that they are adhered to. Rinalia did not play an active part in the discussion, but was very effective in chairing the discussion. George was very supportive of our position and Cherine as NGPC chair took a balanced position but I think understood that something needs to be done. Everyone was quite candid. Overall, I think that there is good understanding that ICANN needs to at least try to fix the problem and can't just ignore it. That does not necessarily map to succeeding of course. It was clear that no one has a magic bullet - voluntary agreement from all concerned registries was unlikely, unilateral contract changes would be ugly, and it was unclear what could be done to entice most or all registries to fix the problem. And the Board is therefore in a difficult position with respect to the GAC, as well as the rest of us. Whether they will backtrack and at least imply that they are considering a freeze to force the issue was not discussed. I suggested a meeting of all parties (NGPC, ALAC, GAC, BC and perhaps Registries) in Singapore and Cherine seemed to think it might be a good idea. It remains to be seen if it will happen. The issues will be further discussed at the upcoming NGPC meeting, and the duration of that meeting was explicitly lengthened to ensure that there was adequate time for a thorough discussion. Overall, I was very pleased with the meeting. Despite the heavy presence of support staff, the meeting was frank and I believe productive. It sets a good precedent for such future engagements. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [PICISOC] Invitation to Internet Governance Session #PTC15
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

Dear All, Regrettably the event has passed but certainly other key events to look forward to is the upcoming APRICOT and APrIGF which will be held in Fukuoka, Japan and Macau, China respectively. Sadly there was no recording as you had to be on site but you can follow the #PTC15 or #IGF With every best wish, Sala On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Vish विशारद PYC <virat.surya(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible to participate via internet? > > On 1/21/15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Firstly apologies for the cross posting. I would like to invite you to > the > > Pacific Telecommunication Council 15 Conference's Executive Roundtable on > > Internet Governance which is being held in Coral Room 2 at The Hilton, > > Hawaiian Village from 4pm till 5pm Honolulu time. > > > > You can follow the twitter hashtag #PTC15 #IGF > > > > Session Description is as follows: > > > > Executive Insight Roundtable 10: Internet Governance > > In 2005, the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society defined > > Internet governance as "the development and application by governments, > the > > private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared > > principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that > > shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The Internet is expanding > > exponentially. The Internet Governance Forum mandate from the United > nations > > ends in 2015. Though there is no sign that the future of the IGF is in > > danger, so far there is no word from the UN asking for input on the > renewal > > of IGF. In early 2014, the U.S. government announced plans to relinquish > its > > historic stewardship over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), > > which is operated by ICANN, to the global multi-stakeholder Internet > > community when its contract with ICANN expires in September 2015.Many > > experts believe this change may set the stage for broader changes in > other > > areas of Internet governance, such as intellectual property rights and > > cybersecurity. > > > > Who is responsible for Internet governance among the different > stakeholder > > groups? What are issues that may disrupt the roles of existing > stakeholders? > > How should consensus on key principles or outcomes be reached for > solutions > > that benefit the global Internet rather than special interests? How > should > > market-specific challenges or issues that are particular to a local > > community be approached for the global Internet to continue its > innovative > > contributions? These are just some of the challenging questions around > > Internet Governance that will be discussed in this executive insight > > roundtable. > > > > Moderator: > > Steven Smith, Associate VP, IT Technology & Deputy CIO, University of > > Hawaii, USA > > Panelists: > > David Conrad, CTO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > (ICANN) > > John Curran, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers > > (ARIN) > > Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre > > (APNIC) > > With every best wish, > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > -- > नमस्ते Namaste > > धन्यवाद Thanks > -- > Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/VisharadManjeet > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

Invitation to Internet Governance Session #PTC15
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 21, 2015

Jan. 21, 2015

Dear All, Firstly apologies for the cross posting. I would like to invite you to the Pacific Telecommunication Council 15 Conference's Executive Roundtable on Internet Governance which is being held in Coral Room 2 at The Hilton, Hawaiian Village from 4pm till 5pm Honolulu time. You can follow the twitter hashtag #PTC15 #IGF Session Description is as follows: Executive Insight Roundtable 10: Internet Governance In 2005, the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society defined Internet governance as "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The Internet is expanding exponentially. The Internet Governance Forum mandate from the United nations ends in 2015. Though there is no sign that the future of the IGF is in danger, so far there is no word from the UN asking for input on the renewal of IGF. In early 2014, the U.S. government announced plans to relinquish its historic stewardship over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is operated by ICANN, to the global multi-stakeholder Internet community when its contract with ICANN expires in September 2015.Many experts believe this change may set the stage for broader changes in other areas of Internet governance, such as intellectual property rights and cybersecurity. Who is responsible for Internet governance among the different stakeholder groups? What are issues that may disrupt the roles of existing stakeholders? How should consensus on key principles or outcomes be reached for solutions that benefit the global Internet rather than special interests?  How should market-specific challenges or issues that are particular to a local community be approached for the global Internet to continue its innovative contributions? These are just some of the challenging questions around Internet Governance that will be discussed in this executive insight roundtable. Moderator: Steven Smith, Associate VP, IT Technology & Deputy CIO, University of Hawaii, USA Panelists: David Conrad, CTO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) John Curran, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) With every best wish, Sala Sent from my iPad

1 0

!! Please RSVP!! - YAAMD: Yet Another ALAC Meeting Doodle
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 17, 2015

Jan. 17, 2015

Dear All, Only 3 outstanding ALAC Members to complete and those Regional Leaders who wish to have their options taken into consideration. Please complete this Doodle poll as soon as possible as we need to get this call scheduled with interpretation. Thank you very much! Kind regards, Gisella On 15/01/2015 00:05, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: We need to definitively set the time for the January ALAC meeting as well as those for the rest of the year. The last Doodle did not succeed for a variety of reasons, the prime one being that many people failed to provide a wide range of possible times. In fact, many people blocked out over 1/2 the day, some a lot more (see attached grid). The new Doodle (<http://doodle.com/6ekk354crdep7zg9>http://doodle.com/6ekk354crdep7zg9) is a bit different: - It is visible, so you can see what other people have selected and they can see your selections (as with out normal meeting Doodles). This also allows you to revise your entry. - Each slot is just one hour. We will need two consecutive slots for the ALAC meeting. The intent is still the same. We want one or more slots where ALL ALAC members can attend, and preferably regional leaders as well. If we can find one slot that inconveniences no one, that will be the meeting time. Otherwise we will rotate times to spread the pain of meeting at an inconvenient time. I understand that some people will have hard constraints that they cannot control, but PLEASE BE AS FLEXIBLE AS YOU CAN, and do not block out times just because they are not your first preference. We need to schedule the January meeting quickly, so please complete this Doodle by 23:59 on Friday, Jan 16th. The Doodle MUST be completed by all ALAC members and Liaisons and should be completed by all regional leaders if their wishes are to be taken into consideration. Staff wishes will also be factored in if they complete the Doodle. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 17, 2015

Jan. 17, 2015

If anyone has any thoughts on this, please forward and I will collate them and send them in. Alan At 17/01/2015 10:10 AM, David Olive wrote: >Below is a note from the ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs. > >--------------------------------------------- > >Dear SO/AC/SG: > >The Board Risk Committee (BRC) is tasked to >provide oversight and guidance into enterprise >risk identification and remediation for ICANN. >ICANN has developed a risk management framework >and methodology that is used to identify, mitigate and monitor risks. > >The purpose of this email is to reach out to >you, the SO/AC/SG Leadership, to ask your group >to identify what it believes are the top five >enterprise-wide risks to ICANN. This feedback >process allows us to calibrate and evaluate >risks identified internally with those identified by the community. > >We envision a response as an enumerated list of >the top five enterprise risks that your SO or AC >group believes ought to be ICANNs top priorities. > >We ask to provide a written response via email >by 5 February 2015. We anticipate discussion on >these identified risks in the SO/AC Constituency >meetings with the Board during ICANN 52 in >Singapore. Please send all written responses >directly to <mailto:Enterprise-Risk@ICANN.Org>Enterprise-Risk(a)ICANN.Org. > >We understand that you may not have the time to >develop a formal response from your SO or AC >group. In that case, we would appreciate you >providing us with your own personal views or >those of a small sub-set of your SO or AC group, >but please let us know if you have done so. We >will iterate the process to improve it and >comments on possible improvements are most welcome. > >Again, thank you in advance and we look forward to your input. > >Regards, >Mike Silber & Ram Mohan >ICANN Board Risk Committee Co-Chairs > > > >David A. Olive >Vice President, Policy Development Support >General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters Istanbul >Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 >Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 >Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >Email: <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>david.olive(a)icann.org >www.icann.org >

1 0