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

YAAMD: Yet Another ALAC Meeting Doodle
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

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

Fwd: fTLD Comment Letter to ICANN re: Enhanced Consumer Protection Safeguards
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

>From: Craig Schwartz <craig(a)ftld.com> >To: <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> >CC: <steve.crocker(a)icann.org>, <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, <elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, > <sally.scutt(a)bba.org.uk>, Paul Smocer <Paul.Smocer(a)FSRoundtable.org>, > "Viveca Ware" <Viveca.Ware(a)icba.org>, <Robinson(a)insuranceeurope.eu> >Subject: fTLD Comment Letter to ICANN re: Enhanced Consumer >Protection Safeguards >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:23:23 -0500 > > >Dear Mr. Chalaby, > >Please see the attached communication from fTLD Registry Services >regarding the recent letters to ICANN from the ALAC and BC regarding >the implementation of GAC Category 1 Advice and the need for >enhanced consumer protection safeguards in some new gTLDs. > >As always please let me know if you have any questions. > >Best, > >Craig Schwartz >Managing Director >fTLD Registry Services, LLC >600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 >Washington, DC 20005 >Office: +1 202 589 2532 >Cellular: +1 202 236 1154 >Skype: craig-schwartz >Twitter: fTLD_Registry > >Please visit us at <http://www.ftld.com/>www.ftld.com

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 6 January 2015
by Holly Raiche Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

Hi Everyone This is the document on privacy/proxy services that will be considered at the meeting in a few hours from now- with a hope that it can be released as a report for discussion in Singapore - but must be approved by the WG for release by 19 January. Section One of the report is the summary - with highlights on the outstanding issues (some not labelled as issues but the wording makes it pretty clear what the issues still are - largely around how much effort should be made to contact the beneficial registrant for non LEA/Security messages, ability to charge for forwarding of messages, checking details of the beneficial registrant are a few of the main ones. What we haven’t touched is what to do if the ‘accredited’ P/P provider (and we don’t know what that means) doesn’t abide by the specification. Clearly, going through this will be part of the session on privacy in the Singapore session What I am looking for is any and all comments on this draft so that I can make any final comments in the next few days. Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on Tuesday 6 January 2015 > Date: 6 January 2015 4:52:26 am AEDT > To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > > Dear WG members, > > The WG Chairs would like to use the call this Tuesday (6 January) to review the draft Initial Report (first circulated in December 2014 and re-attached for your convenience). While the Executive Summary provides an overview of the contents of the report, including noting that in respect of some Charter questions the WG has yet to arrive at preliminary agreement or has divided opinions, please review the draft with a view toward sharing your comments about the full report. > > As you’ll recall, we are aiming to publish the Initial Report for public comment on 19 January (the publication deadline before ICANN52 in Singapore). In the event, however, that the WG considers it more appropriate to conclude discussions on outstanding items prior to publication, staff has prepared a draft updated Work Plan that takes into account publication of the Initial Report after the Singapore meeting. It is attached for your review as well. > > Thanks, cheers, and wishing you all a very happy new year, > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Date: Saturday, 20 December 2014 00:44 > To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: Draft Initial Report for your review > >> Dear WG members, >> >> Please find attached, per the deadlines in our most recent Work Plan, a draft Initial Report for your review. We understand that the WG will likely be meeting next Tuesday, 23 December, to continue to discuss Category G and other issues if time permits. We understand also that issues relating to Category F remain under discussion, and that at the last WG meeting, it was agreed that outstanding questions on Category E will be posed to the community during the public comment period. As such, and given that the WG will have two scheduled meetings in January 2015 – prior to the posting deadline of 19 January for ICANN52 – to discuss the draft report, please bear in mind that this does not represent the final version of what will be published for public comment, as that will depend on any further progress, agreement or changes by the WG between now and 19 January. >> >> In relation to the WG’s latest discussions on Category E and G, please note that we have added the following description of a “persistent delivery failure” to the preliminary conclusions for Category E: >> · "The WG considers that a “persistent delivery failure” will have occurred when an electronic communications system abandons or otherwise stops attempting to deliver an electronic communication to a customer after [a certain number of] repeated or duplicate delivery attempts within [a reasonable period of time]. The WG emphasizes that such persistent delivery failure, in and of itself, is not sufficient to trigger further provider obligation or action under this Category E unless the provider also becomes aware of the persistent delivery failure." >> >> We have also continued to insert and maintain square brackets around language for which the WG has not yet reached agreement. >> >> We look forward to continued discussions next week and to the WG’s review of this draft Initial Report come January. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

2 2

Best wishes for the new year
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

As we start a new year, the ALAC is involved with more important issues than I can ever recall in my last years. - The IANA transition and associated accountability tracks are not only of crucial importance to ICANN, but directly includes many ALAC members plus Cheryl. - We are embarking on a review of ALS criteria and expectations which I believe will have a significant (and beneficial impact in the future). - We are about to start a new cyclical review of At-Large and the ALAC - The see the pending reviews of the new gTLD process and other processes potentially leading to a second round of new gTLDs will without doubt involve At-Large to a great extent. There is a somewhat cynical expression: "No good deed goes unpunished". The ALAC is now generally accepted as being a strong and beneficial force in ICANN. As our reward (or perhaps punishment), we are expected to keep contributing and help make ICANN a more friendly place for the "public interest". It will be a busy year, but I hope that it will be a rewarding one for all of us. Best wishes for a rewarding 2015 to you, and to all of your families for allowing you to donate so much of your time and energy to ICANN. Alan

3 2

Fwd: NGPC-ALAC subgroup to discuss Cat 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2015

Jan. 6, 2015

You will recall that in reply to the Advice that we gave the Board in October regarding Public Interest Commitments (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-public-interest-comme…) we received an invitation to convened a small subgroup of ALAC and NGPC members to further discuss the issue (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-greenberg-1…) In reply to this request, I have sent the message below. The group was chosen to include those who have been most active on our earlier discussions and comments regarding PICs, and includes Cheryl as our GNSO Liaison (as noted in the letter, a possible GNSO policy development process is one of the outcomes that will be considered). Alan >To: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: NGPC-ALAC subgroup to discuss Cat 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs >Cc: Rinalia Abdul Rahim ><rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com>, Michelle Bright ><michelle.bright(a)icann.org>, Megan Bishop ><megan.bishop(a)icann.org>, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > >Dear Cherine, > >Thank you for your letter of December 19 December 2014. > >The ALAC would be pleased to engage with a subgroup of the NGPC. > >I believe that this is the first time that such >an ALAC-Board discussion has been proposed to >address an issue of mutual interest, and as >such, we will do our best to ensure that we have >a useful exchange and that we can use this as a model for future engagements. > >The ALAC will be represented by: > >- Alan Greenberg >- Olivier Crépon-Leblond >- Cheryl Langdon-Orr >- Evan Leibovitch >- Holly Raiche > >As you know, the ALAC has been expressing a >variety of concerns over PICs and their >enforcement since they were first introduced. >The strings associated with GAC Category 1, >Safeguards 1-8 are of particular importance to >us, as they may have direct and possibly onerous >impact on end-users. We look forward to finding >an acceptable path forwards to address this concern. > >Warm regards and best wishes for 2015, > >Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Maureen Hilyard Jan. 5, 2015

Jan. 5, 2015

Thanks for your thoughts on this. My 2c is that if this regular posting relates to a particular metric that addresses ALAC's or anyone else's work, then I assume that the staff are logging it in some appropriate database for reporting purposes. If not, then what is its relevance? Out of curiosity I usually cast my eye over the list when it arrives even though I find it quite meaningless, because the people who send the most important messages for my work are on just about every occasion, not listed. But as someone said, its only once a month, I just haven't bothered to discard it. Maureen -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sunday, 4 January 2015 2:14 p.m. To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org On 2 January 2015 at 17:16, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > my request is to be unsubscribed ONLY from the "Weekly posting summary" > established by T. Narten, not from other elements on the At-Large > lists (this is in answer to Seun's remark). As Thomas said, that's not possible. You're on the list or off it. The available options are: 1) Thomas' automated system stops generating the messages 2) A brand new list is created specifically for statistics, and those who want it can opt in. 3) The status quo maintains; if there are individuals who don't like specific posts to the ALAC list (whether from Thomas or any other sources) there are dozens of ways to filter them out at the recipient level, many of which can be heavily automated (ie, in Gmail and Hotmail). Olivier has already offered some helpful pointers. My clear preference is for (3), in part because of the Carlton mentioned. There are many times I have had to filter unwanted senders or subjects from mailing lists to which I am subscribed. Of these situations, Thomas' automated statistics posts are by far the most benign I have encountered. This is not spam and it is not without purpose to anyone. I for one see value in them, IMO the onus of dealing with unwanted mail of this sort is at the end of the recipient, not the sender. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0