January 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

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