February 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Narelle's Intervention: Public Forum
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Dear All, Further to Narelle's intervention on the Board Resolution re: perception of changing community perception, kindly find the link to the Resolution provided by Ram Mohan: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d Kind Regards, -- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; +679 8024129; +6797144838* *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*

1 0

Dinner Thursday
by Holly Raiche Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Hi For those who have not checked Skype - Gisella recommended a terrific restaurant only 2 blocks from the hotel (in Singapore) which is on the water, inexpensive with great food. I am suggesting that we meet after Board drinks - in the lobby - and Evan can lead us all there Holly

2 1

Session on Policy and Implementation
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

There is a session today on the draft report on the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG today at 15:30 local time (http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation) This is (in my opinion) an incredibly important report and session. If the concepts being proposed ae ultimately accepted, the way we develop and implement gTLD policy will be significantly altered, with a number of far-reaching impacts. These impacts are potentially very positive, but could have 2nd order effects which are less positive. Both Cheryl and I who have been very active in this WG have clearly said that we believe that the ALAC should comment on this report. Good participation in this information session will help that. Alan

1 0

Session on Board Reconsideration and Ombudsman Wednesday
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

For people who have an interest on accountability issues, there is a meeting on the Board Reconsideration, the Ombudsman, and I am told the Independent Review Process (IRP). It overlaps with the RALO Leadership meeting, but most ALAC members should be able to make it. It may include a discussion of possible improvements. Alan

5 5

Session on Universal Acceptance (9 Feb/17:00-18:15 SGT/Canning)
by Satish Babu Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Dear all On behalf of the ALAC Working Group on IDNs, I'd like to invite you all to the session on Universal Acceptance scheduled for Monday, 9 Feb, at 17:00 at Canning. The session addresses the important matter of ensuring that all services and applications on the Internet fully support new gTLDs, IDNs and internationalized email addresses. For Remote Participants, here are the links to the Meeting Room as well as to audio in different languages: http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-universal-acceptance satish

1 0

DNS WOMEN will offer a rare and interesting movie screening open to all!!! on Tuesday evening 6:45 PM CANNING ROOM
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Dear all On Tuesday evening, under the sponsorship of AUDA and PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY and its new Portal for Not for Profit Community, DNS WOMEN will present a movie screening - "Showing of The Computers, The Remarkable Untold Story of the ENIAC Programmers" , from Kathy Kleiman is up on the ICANN 52 schedule in the Canning Room. Date: Tue, 10 February 2015 - 18:45 to 20:00 SGT Room: Canning There are no remote participation services available for this session at this time. Overview: Asian premiere of The Computers, a documentary short produced by Kathy Kleiman, http://eniacprogrammers.org/eniac-programmers-project/founder/ describing the remarkable untold story of the six young women who programmed ENIAC, the world's first all-electronic, programmable computer. Industry-wide preview is hosted during the ICANN Meeting in Singapore by DNS Women. Come join us for this special event - drinks provided! The Venue http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-eniac-programmers Hope you all can join us to this remarkable opportunity. Best regards 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.

1 0

LAC STRATEGY - LAC SPACE at ICANN 52 -SiNGAPORE meeting
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 6, 2015

Feb. 6, 2015

Dear all As LAC region had establish from some time now, our region has a 1.5 to 2 hours slots at each ICANN meeting to explore business and engagement opportunities around the world . This Singapore meeting will be no different and our LAC SPACE will be running on Monday 9th, from 10:30 to 12:00 with the following Agenda. I am the coordinator of a wonderful group of collaborators from our community and from ICANN. It is, of course, an open session and you all are invited. Thank you for your attention. 10:30 10:35 Introduction Rodrigo de la Parra ICANN - Vanda Scartezini 10:35 10:55 LAC Strategy Update Rodrigo Saucedo ICANN (remotely) 10:55 11:15 The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Esteban Lescano (remotely) 11:15 11:35 New vision for internet architecture, ³Internet of the Future² Professor Antonio Alberti INATEL (remotely) 11:35 -11:45 Plans and strategy for .ltda Urs EROES dot LTDA 11:45 12:00 DPRD¹s work in LAC Region Nora Abusita - ICANN 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.

1 0

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

Re: [ALAC] For Review and Action Prep For ICANN 52 High Interest Topic Session
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

I just realized that I was negligent in not forwarding this message to the ALAC. As you will see, this is a summary of the Monday "High Interest" session. The three topics coalesced at the SO-AC-SG Chair meeting on the Friday before the LA ICANN meeting, which both Olivier and I attended (as present and incoming ALAC Chairs). The three items are clearly very inter-related, and you will notice that the second one is superset of the ATLAS II recommendation for a way to access Policy info. Following the Chairs' identifying these topics, each was assigned to one Chair and I am leading the Information management one (not that a lot has happened as far as I can see). We are allocated up to 1 person per RALO on the panel. As I am leader of one of the tasks, I will exercise Chair's prerogative and will fill the NA seat. We need volunteers for the other regions. Please contact me via this list or privately if you are interested. For the record, my personal position is that a prioritization exercise is pretty futile. If we can even partially address those, the need to prioritize will be significantly lessened. Of course, that will not address overload at times such as this with the IANA and Accountability efforts, but there really is not way that we can fix the current overload with prioritization - it is driven by external events that we cannot choose to ignore. Alan At 31/01/2015 04:56 AM, David Olive wrote: >Dear Community Leaders: > >As we all prepare for travel to the ICANN Public >Meeting in Singapore (ICANN 52), this note is >designed to update you and ask for assistance >regarding our preparations for the SO-AC High >Interest Topic session scheduled for the main >ballroom (Padang) on the afternoon of Monday 9 February at 1400 Local Time. > >As you know, based on our recent calls and >correspondence, the main topic you agreed to >focus on for the ICANN 52 session was the >operational and workload improvement efforts >that were started at the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles. > >During our last meeting (a couple of weeks ago >with Fadi) we discussed the brainstorm idea to >try to associate that operational improvements >discussion with the broader ICANN Accountability >topic. As Jonathan and Keith warned during the >meeting, that connection has proven to be too >tenuous. As a result, we have explored >re-fining the session to focus directly on the >three operational improvement themes - > >(1) Establishing a stakeholder-led mechanism for >prioritizing ICANNs overall policy issues and related work areas; >(2) Developing a comprehensive knowledge >database or network to make information about >ICANNs current and past work easily accessible >and available to all existing and future ICANN participants; and >(3) Identifying ways to improve our capabilities >to identify and attract new and productive >community participation while retaining existing >participants who dedicate their time and efforts to ICANNs work. > >The overall goal of the Monday session can now >be more focused - to develop a useful dialogue >that demonstrates to the broader community that >their leadership (all of you) is engaged in >developing solutions to the communitys current >workload challenges and is interested in >absorbing community ideas to help collectively >solve these issues. The more concise agenda also >works well because due to scheduling of other >sessions we are limited to a 75-minute session time block. > >Weve structured the session in two parts. The >first part (25 minutes) will offer the audience >a general discussion among you and other >community representative panelists on the >overall view you or communities have about >ICANNs community workload challenges and how >those challenges impact ICANNs operational >accountability generally that is, what is >currently working operationally, what can be >improved and what ideas are being explored to >take improvement steps. You or your fellow >community members might even have specific best >practice suggestions that work in your communities. > >The second part of the session (45 minutes) will >address, in turn, each of the three work streams >you have developed (15 minutes a piece), so that >the community can see and hear the various >approaches that are being considered in the >three topic areas to help address ICANNs workload challenges. > >We hope that through in-room and remote >participation that audience members (via in-room >microphones and twitter posts) will be able to >contribute some thoughts and ideas to the discussion. > >The session will present itself as more of a >problem-solving exercise which will enable you >and your community representatives to talk about >ideas for changes. We hope the session >transcript will be a useful tool to help us take >the various subgroups to the next step of their >discussions and ultimate recommendations. We >think the modified theme will work nicely - >enmeshed with the Monday ICG IANA Stewardship >Transition and the CCWG Accountability >programming as an example of how ICANN community >leadership is looking to improve ICANNs >effectiveness and operational excellence. > >Weve created some draft context/background >material and sample seed questions for >moderator Brad White to consider in introducing >the session and keeping things moving. Please >feel free to suggest additional questions or >modifications to the context materials for Brad >that are attached to this message. > >Also, when we meet next Friday in Singapore, >please share with me who you plan to have on the >stage to represent your community during the >session. We will follow the now-traditional >protocol of the following panelist assignments: > > a maximum two (2) representatives from each >of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC >communities, and a maximum of four (4) >participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder >Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO). > >I look forward to finalizing these arrangements >with you when we meet next week in Singapore. >Looking forward to your feedback via email and at the meeting. > >Best regards, > >David > > >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

Discussion on ALS Criteria and Expectations
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 4, 2015

Feb. 4, 2015

We have a full hour set aside in Singapore for the start of the discussion on ALS criteria and expectations. Although that sounds like a lot of time, if all 30 or so of us participate, that is only 2 minutes each! Staff, particularly those that interact with RALOs, ALSes and ALS applicants are welcome to participate. So it would be useful if we all got our thoughts organized before the meeting. I would prefer no to direct the discussion too much, but here are some thoughts on what I see as wrong with our current situation (in no particular order) and some thoughts for the future: - We have too many ALSes where there is really only one person who cares about or focuses on ICANN issues. Often that person is a leading contributor, but it is unclear what the rest of the ALS contributes, or even to what extent the rest of the ALS is even aware of ICANN. - In the above case, where there is good worker, we do not want to lose that person - In the above case where there is no one who contributes regularly (but there may be a person who is willing to travel at our expense) do we want them? - We have some ALSes where there is not only 1 person active in ICANN, but there is evidence that there is only 1 or few people involved in it at all. Should there be a minimum number to be an ALS? - We need to more greatly engage people who have an interest in general Internet governance, and in issues that go outside of ICANN's purview. Fadi has said that he will support this, but I have a hard time understanding how we should so this, and how we should support them (and vice-versa). - What do want a "good" ALS to do? Have a web site that points to ICANN and selected ICANN pages? Redistribute some messages, and if so which ones (do we have to create such messages for this purpose)? - Are there other models that we can learn from where remote groups are kept engaged? ICANN Chapters? IEEE Chapters? - What should we be looking for in ALS applicants to better recognize a good candidate? Evidence of other activities and involvement (web sites, paper documents)? References? - Provisional or Conditional ALS status for the first period (year?)? - Periodic reports from ALSes? - Given the problems with ALSes, how do we want to boost the concept of individual members to better serve At-Large? Are there any major aspects that I have missed? Alan What we need coming out of this process is:

1 0