December 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Season Greetings
by Vanda Scartezini Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

[cid:F1A105A2-D50B-4350-B113-E036F95CCCDF] Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

3 3

Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Dear ALAC and RALO Chairs, I had shared the attached presentation slides outlining Board Comments on CCWG 3rd Draft Proposal during the At-Large IANA Issues Working Group Call on Tue UTC2030. Please review the full Board comments as there is more information and detail there (also attached together with cover letter from Steve Crocker on behalf of the Board). The concerns, rationale and suggestions in the full Board Comments document are important to understand. Please note that the Board is open to alternative solutions on how to address the concerns. *Some points that I highlighted during the call:* The Board comments dated 14 Dec 2015 are directed at the SOs/ACs for consideration in their capacity as chartering organizations of the accountability initiative as well as at the CCWG on Accountability. The comments represent the_full_consensus view of the Board. The Board expresses support and agreement for nearly all the recommendations. However, there are remaining concerns and these concerns are consistent with concerns that the Board had raised in the past. For concerns that are considered as “serious” for the Board, if they are not sufficiently addressed in the CCWG’s Final Report, the Board would follow the principles and procedure laid out in its Resolution of 16 October 2014 (I pasted the text of that resolution below so that you are aware of what the process entails). In my view, if we end up with a situation where there is no Board and CCWG agreement, there is the possibility that we may miss the political window for the transition. We need to work to bridge the gap constructively and in a timely manner. My understanding is that the Board wants to have a Transition, but it has duties and responsibilities that require it to consider carefully the impact of CCWG recommendations on ICANN before agreeing to them. In principle, the Board is not able to agree to recommendations that in its opinion and judgment would endanger, weaken or destabilize ICANN. Within the 3rd Draft Proposal, some recommendations are too broad and/or too vague. This opens the door for unintended consequences or exploitation, which may unbalance or interrupt the operation of ICANN. In principle, anything that creates open-ended obligations would destabilize ICANN and would undermine ICANN’s ability to do its job. A stable and functioning ICANN is a prerequisite for ICANN to carry out its mission and this is the yardstick for what is considered to be in the global public interest. *Board Resolution 2014.10.16.17* (emphasis in red and underlined text is mine) Resolved (2014.10.16.17), the Board commits to following the following principles when considering the Cross Community Working Group Recommendations on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance: 1. These principles apply to consensus-based recommendations from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance. 2. If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a 2/3 majority of the Board. 3. The Board must provide detailed rationale to accompany the initiation of dialogue. The Board shall agree with the CCWG the method (e.g., by teleconference, email or otherwise) by which the dialogue will occur. The discussions shall be held in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. 4. The CCWG will have an opportunity to address the Board's concerns and report back to the Board on further deliberations regarding the Board's concerns. The CCWG shall discuss the Board's concerns within 30 days of the Board's initiation of the dialogue. 5. If a recommendation is modified through the CCWG, it is returned back to the Board for further consideration. The CCWG is to provide detailed rationale on how the modification addresses the concerns raised by the Board. 6. If, after modification, the Board still believes the CCWG Recommendation is not in the global public interest to implement the CCWG Recommendation, the Board may send the item back to the CCWG for further consideration, again requiring a 2/3 vote of the Board for that action. Detailed rationale for the Board's action is again required. *In the event the Board determines not to accept a modification, then the Board shall not be entitled to set a solution on the issue addressed by the recommendation until such time as CCWG and the Board reach agreement*. Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Consolidating issues to be included in the ALAC Statement on CCWG Accountability proposal
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Dear ALAC members and regional leaders, The CCWG has asked chartering SOs/ACs to use the Public Comment to identify issues that would prevent the SOs/ACs from ratifying the final CCWG Proposal. Hence, there is a need to obtain clarity in the issues that should be raised in the ALAC response to the CCWG Accountability proposal over and above those in the current draft. During today’s IANA Issues call, it was suggested that a quick poll should be undertaken during the forthcoming Webinars organised by the ALAC, incorporating the issues raised by the different members of the At-Large Community, for people to mark them as: - a red line issue that should be in the ALAC Statement; - an important issue that should be in ALAC Statement but is not a red line issue; - an issue that should not be in the ALAC Statement; - an issue in which you have no interest. At this stage, and until 20:00 UTC, Wednesday 16 December 2015, please be so kind to email the issues which you think the ALAC should include in its Statement to staff(a)atlarge.icann.orgfor them to be included in the polls. It is vitally important that you also attend the Webinars to take part in the polls. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG
by Seun Ojedeji Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

Hello Olivier, My understanding is that further details will be developed in WS2. If the outcome of that process only involve sticking within the scope of "Within it's mission, ICANN will respect human rights" then fine. But there is a "internationally recognised" clause in the current wording. IMO that's the devil in the details that I look forward to seeing Regards On Dec 15, 2015 5:05 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: Dear Seun, comments inline: On 15/12/2015 10:00, Seun Ojedeji wrote: On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Dear Seun, > > just a few points: > > On 15/12/2015 05:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > > - line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too > > strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the > > actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any form > > of human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to answer, my > > response will be that; for a technical organisation like ICANN, I'd > > say NO. > > > > ICANN performs some tasks which some Governments have said should be > performed by Governments. The current emphasis on Human Rights is such > that corporations and non-profits that have a strong public interest > component and that perform such tasks incorporate Human Rights text. > There is a cross community working party that has worked for over a year > on this and the idea has gone a long way from when it was first > mentioned. It is a side issue - let's not be the Advisory Committee that > takes position against this. > SO: I would look forward to human rights wording in the bylaw that would ONLY achieve the purpose you've stated above. Do you not think that the language which is currently included is suitable to explicitly state that the acknowledgement of HR does not provide any additional right? I felt that the section was well written. It is highly unlikely that at this stage we'll be able to convince anyone to remove this section, bearing in mind the level of support that it has gained from other communities. In addition, it would reflect really badly on the ALAC to oppose a section on human rights. I'd suggest we have much more concerns with other parts of the report. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

The IANA Issues WG met on Friday to discuss possible issue on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal. The CCWG documents can be founds at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016. The document discussed at the IANA-Issues meeting can be found linked to the Agenda Item 3 of https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw (entitled Review of Proposal and Potential ALAC Positions). We need to send a summary of our comments to the CCWG today (in time for a CCWG meeting on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC). The attached document summarizes the issues as modified by the discussion during the teleconference. Please send any comments in sufficient time for me to integrate them (as appropriate) into the documents. In particular, is there anything here that is counter to the tone or detail of the discussion? The Final Public Comment must be submitted no later than 21 December. It will no doubt closely follow the attached document, but may well include other issues that come to light over the next days. As ALL ALAC member will be asked to vote on the Public Comments and will ultimately have to decide whether to ratify the CCWG Proposal, this is both important and time-sensitive. To the extent that is possible and you feel appropriate, please involve your RALOs. Alan

7 11

Re: [ALAC] ACTION: Draft of the ALAC comments to be sent to the CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

At 14/12/2015 11:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >To avoid repeating what may have been already said, is it possible >to see the current updated draft i.e The version you intend to >present to ccwg? Also I do hope that there will still be opportunity >to review beyond the ccwg meeting. > >That said, a few comments on your draft below(again at the fear of >repetition): > >- Spelling/grammatical checks needs to be done. Which I think Tim >may have done justice to > >- line 93: Supporting inclusion of human rights in the bylaw is too >strong a statement. I'd suggest that it be conditioned on seeing the >actual bylaw text. Maybe we should even ask ourselves whether any >form of human rights text be included in the bylaw? If I were to >answer, my response will be that; for a technical organisation like >ICANN, I'd say NO. I will re-word to say we support the proposed text as opposed to simply saying we support HR in Bylaws. Thanks for catching that. We can talk about whether we wantto withdraw that support at the IANA-Issues talk tomorrow. >- We did not indicate support/against for some of the >recommendations? Is this just focusing on where we have issues? as I >thought we should state our stand for all the recommendations, even >if it's just 1 line of support. The formal comment will follow the template and give our position for each recommendation (as my PPT did). This is just the problem areas. For the rest, we can discuss tomorrow at the IANA-Issues call, but see my comments below. We REALLY need to focus on issues that will prevent us from ratifying, not just tweak the proposal. >- I support the observation made by Olivier on budget veto and I >believe it should be included. > >Other comments on the proposal: > >- As usual, I still have huge concern on the ability for appointing >SO/AC to remove its board member. I think we are beyond that now. Even the Board is agreeing... >- The ability for anyone(except the originator) to petition a bylaw >implementation that results from PDP is IMO absurd as it seem quite >top down. However I can live with it but suggest that the >requirement for originating PDP support be moved to the "triggering >review of petition" layer instead of "power exercising layer" in the >escalation process(para76) The Board has proposed re-wording to clarify exactly what the process is. I cannot see making a big fuss about at what point the SO originating the PDP can effectively kill this power being exercised. There are SO many things in both the CWG and CCWG which could have been done cleaner, but that is the by-product of MS and compromise. >- Removal of nomcom appointed board member should have same >threshold of 4 support and not 3 as currently stated in row 107 (para90) Do we really want to re-open this one? >- I know there was CWG requirement to veto ICANN budget, I really >wonder if that included the IANA budget as well. So I am really >concerned by the current wording of Para153/154. I mean, is there >any reason why IANA would be made to lack funding considering this >is the actual technical work of ICANN? I fear those paras if >effected could have unintended consequences. The IANA serves not >just the numbers community! It was a requirement. This has also been raised by the Board. >- The threshold for removing entire board has to be absolute! i.e >5/5 and when it's 4 participating then it should be 4/4; if we are >going to break the organisation, we should all take the >responsibility. (Para176-181) I note that we did not require 100% in the 2nd draft. >- Which work stream 1 is referred to in para267? Perhaps we need to >clarify when work stream 1 ends and when 2 commence as I think that >paragraph may be misplaced in its current form. There is only one WS1. It ends when we issue the final proposal in a couple of weeks. >- Aside the overreaching discussion on "consensus requirement" GAC >as an AC has been given more recognition by the virtue of having a >formal board threshold to reject their advice. This in my view >further gives formality/attention to GAC advice by the board. In >view of this, I believe ALAC should request a former commitment from >board to give our advice more attention as well. I don't know how we >can say this in the comment period (without causing any uproar). Para274/5 There is already an ATRT recommendation that has been accepted that somewhat strenthens out position. In my mind, there is no way to re-open that discussion now. >Regards > >"Sent from my handheld, do pardon any mistype ;-)" >On Dec 14, 2015 7:29 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The IANA Issues WG met on Friday to discuss possible issue on the >CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal. > >The CCWG documents can be founds at ><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016. > >The document discussed at the IANA-Issues meeting can be found >linked to the Agenda Item 3 of ><https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw>https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw >(entitled Review of Proposal and Potential ALAC Positions). > >We need to send a summary of our comments to the CCWG today (in time >for a CCWG meeting on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC). The attached document >summarizes the issues as modified by the discussion during the teleconference. > >Please send any comments in sufficient time for me to integrate them >(as appropriate) into the documents. In particular, is there >anything here that is counter to the tone or detail of the discussion? > >The Final Public Comment must be submitted no later than 21 >December. It will no doubt closely follow the attached document, but >may well include other issues that come to light over the next days. > >As ALL ALAC member will be asked to vote on the Public Comments and >will ultimately have to decide whether to ratify the CCWG Proposal, >this is both important and time-sensitive. > >To the extent that is possible and you feel appropriate, please >involve your RALOs. > >Alan > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Fwd: Draft ALAC Comments on the CCWG ACCT 3rd Proposal
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

FYI >To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Draft ALAC Comments on the CCWG ACCT 3rd Proposal > >Attached please find the ALAC draft comments on the CCWG 3rd Proposal. > >This document addresses Recommendations 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. At this >point the ALAC is fully supporting Recommendations 1, 3 and 8-12. > >This document is based upon deliberations of the WG advising the >ALAC and is still subject to modification by that group and by the >ALAC based on comments from our entire community. > >Alan

1 0

Updated Draft comments on CCWG porposal
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2015

Dec. 15, 2015

The updated version (in both PDF and WORD formats) is attached. I will send it in to the CCWG in about an hour (including any corrections sent to me quickly). Alan

2 1

Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

FYI the report is attached. ALAC comments have, on the whole, been taken into account. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Liaison to the GNSO -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 23:15:30 +0000 From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue…. You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31…. In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance. The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, *Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager *ICANN *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Endorsement of candidates for the Consumer trust AoC Review
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Thank you Aziz. I will add her to the list. Alan At 06/12/2015 04:25 PM, Aziz Hilali wrote: >Dear Alan, > >For the endorsement of the candidates to the >Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice >Review Team, I propose to add Beran Dondeh from Africa to the ALT members. >Thank you > >Best Regards > >Aziz Hilali >AFRALO Chair > > > > > > > >Le Vendredi 4 dÃ©cembre 2015 4h57, Alan >Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a Ã©crit : > > > >You will recall that at the last ALAC meeting, it was decided that >the five regional ALT members, possibly augmented by RALO >representatives (up to 1 per region) would recommend endorsements to the ALAC. > >To date I have not had any regional leaders identify a person to >participate in the endorsement. > >We are about to schedule the endorsement meeting for next week, so if >there is any interest in adding a regional rep, >please let me know immediately. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

5 5