August 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Some thoughts on ALS Criteria & Expectations Taskforce
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > I hate to say it but the tiny bit of difference we can make comes from the > hard slog - meeting after meeting in WGs where decisions are made. Big +1. I have been promoting engagement in WGs for a long time because it has been clear to me that the [GNSO/ccNSO/CC] WG is the place for getting in on the ground floor and truly influencing policy. Evan has deftly fingered the reason for this; the structural framework of the AC/SO. Anything we do to influence chartering and encourage At-Large people situated in them will bring more to us than any other action. Holly can bear witness from our PPSAI WG experience. Members from across the spectrum of interests truly sought our opinions and were very mindful of our positions. Here's the thing though. The PPSAI - and I suspect increasingly other WG working knotty issues - increasingly show progress AFTER f2f meetings. I am not surprised. In this instance it is a good thing Holly and I are tag teaming. Or our interests would be seriously compromised. A closeout. Perhaps the most important - and most fulfilling to me - piece of work I've done in ICANN has been with the WHOIS EWG. From the perspective of the range of interests represented, it could not be more representative of real life policy development in a multistakeholder environment. When you tag team with folks like Stephanie Perrin, Lanre Ajayi, Michael Niebel and Scott Hollenbeck and argue WHOIS issues f2f with, among others, Michele Neylon, Susan Kamaguchi of Facebook and Fabricio Vayra [then of] Time Warner and yes, Chris Disspain from ICANN Board and Auda, you feel objective and see impact like no other time. You took your shots. And you got yours, too. But so refreshingly clear on objective. The best hope of effective worthwhile contributions to policy development lies in working the WGs and f2f. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Some thoughts on ALS Criteria & Expectations Taskforce
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

At 08/08/2015 06:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 8 August 2015 at 09:37, Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > 3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, > > enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the > > next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with. > >And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face >meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who >genuinely want to get involved. > > >So long as At-Large leadership is selected >bottom-up by a reasonably democratic process, it >will not always include the "hardest workers". >Politics of various sorts can happen in any >region, and it is not a stretch to say that >"number of hours spent on ICANN in the past" can >often be ârended insignificant in an election >campaign next to social skills, global geopolitics or other factors. > >Somebody may be elected based on nothing more >than a promise to vote a certain way on ALAC >statements or to advance a very specific agenda >on a narrow range of issues. How do you confront >that without threatening the democratic process? > >The easy answer is to ask ICANN for more travel >spots as Olivier suggests, so that (as one >possible example) working group chairs (which >are usually in their posts by merit rather than >politics because of the workload). Well, that's >an easy answer for us -- to the rest of ICANN's >constituencies, most of which already take >At-Large to be a charity case, this will be a tough sell. Although ALAC Members and RALO Leaders may well fall into all categories, those tahat fall into category 3 on a regular basis should be dealt with directly, and the others we have little choice but to accept. At least for their first term. Of deeper concern and the ones I focused on when answering were those for whom we support as ALS representatives. >(Then again, ICANN could if it chooses help >At-Large look for outside participation >sponsorship -- yet it is unwilling, or unable, to do so.) > >âAnyway... back when I was more deeply >involved in At-Large, I resisted and even >belittled the various attempts to push, prod, >measure and âsilo us. Most of these efforts >deserve continuing ridicule, for they remain >largely navel-gazing exercises which are more >effective at distraction and time-burning than anything else. > >IMO, there are three overarching needs of At-Large: > * How do we make ICANN and its dilemmas more > accessible to the global public? > * How can we best determine what is important to that public? > * How can we best advance those priorities > within ICANN without being marginalized? I agree. But for better or worse, we either need to make the ALS/RALO structure work, or reduce its visibility and cost. As it is, it is both expensive (not necessarily in money, but in time and focus) and opens us up to strong (and at times valid) criticism >âEverything we do must serve one of those >needsâ. This means frankly answering: > >Who needs to do what at F2F meetings? > (Maybe some of our most important travel is NOT to ICANN meetings?) > >How are we engaging with the public outside ICANN? > (If CROPP is as good as it gets let's not even bother) > >What staff support do we need in research and communications? > (Can we get stats and opinion polls to back our policy actions?) > >How do we mobilize pubic opinion? > (First, we get the public to care) > >Wringing our collective hands over how to deal >with laggards and tourists -- who happen to be >popular enough to get elected -- pre-occupied >ALAC before I got involved, and it continues to >suck energy out of addressing the real reason >the At-Large community even exists. > >âMeanwhile, the other parts of ICANN that >prefer At-Large weak and ineffectual, delight in our tail-chasing. >â >- Evan

6 7

Re: [ALAC] Some thoughts on ALS Criteria & Expectations Taskforce
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 9, 2015

Aug. 9, 2015

Carlton, I think that there are three distinct categories of people here, and we are merging them together. 1. There are the dedicated hard workers for whom the travel may or may not be a "perk" at some level. I put you and me in that category. I have logged close to 2 million flying miles (that is, actual flown miles, not frequent flyer miles), and to quote an old song I am fond of "The thrill is a long time gone". I find it hard to consider a trip half-way across the world, where I may get 6 hours sleep, put in a grueling 7-10 days, and fly out again without seeing anything other than a hotel, perhaps 1 or 2 restaurants and the airport a perk or reward. On the other hand, on rare occasions, I do tag some vacation onto an ICANN trip and from that perspective, it does add a bit of a personal benefit - generally giving me an opportunity to see a place that I might not have done on my own. 2. There are volunteers who are not among among our heavy lifters (really dedicated workers), but want to get involved. They are the ones that our GAs and summits should be targeted at. They are at the meetings to learn, and try to stay involved after. 3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with. Of course, there are also some who straddle several categories. BUt when they go into option 3, I have a problem. Alan At 07/08/2015 01:55 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I participated in this morning's call and wanted to level the >playing field by enunciating some principles and a framework for our >discussions. > >Let's start with some principles. > >1) The At-Large is a volunteer-led and fueled organisation and >whatever we do MUST be informed by unassailable facts we know of >voluntary organisations plus the psychology of voluntarism. > >2) Individuals make the worthwhile contributions, not organisations. > >3) There is a wide range of motivations for voluntarily contributing >and these must be fed for sustaining worthwhile contributions > >4) Results matter but volunteer contributions across the board shall >always be uneven > >So now, the framework for discussions. There are structural issues >as well as political issues that must be embraced for any viable >solution to emerge. The ICANN/RALO MOU is the source of the first >structurally-generated challenge. > >While it recognizes individuals as the providers of policy advice, >it locates individual actions in organisations called ALS. And by so >doing suggests that value be given to the organisation. Some RALOs, >like NARALO, have developed rules that recognize individual >contributions but have shoehorned valuation for contribution into an >ALS structure. I'm not now sure what the answer should be but I >know what we now have is not fit to purpose and objective. > >Another structural issue. An individual coming to the ICANN policy >development ecosystem is going to become a worthwhile contributor by >virtue of mental acumen, penchant for hard work and time in place. >Time in place is the common criteria for success. So current >arrangements give extra value to experienced volunteers. > >At the same time, new blood is required to sustain the flow of >worthwhile contributors. Here's the thing. Face-to-Face (f2f) ICANN >meetings are the best platforms to learn and to become familiarized >with this complex beast called the ICANN ecosystem. > >The effectiveness of a volunteer in policy development is directly >related to serial opportunity to participate in ICANN f2f >meetings. It is no accident that the most impactful groups in ICANN >are a) those that get to f2f meetings as 'volunteers' engaged in >compensated work b) Those who have the wherewithal to self-fund >attendance at ICANN f2f meetings. > >The task is to develop a framework that strikes a balance which >takes into account the need for experienced volunteers with capacity >to deliver worthwhile contributions even as we build capacity in >newer less-experienced volunteers to sustain the At-Large participation agenda. > >The current funding model for attendance of At-Large volunteers to >ICANN f2f meetings assist ALAC representatives, liaisons from ALAC >to qualified SOs/ACs plus named RALO leadership. This construct >seemingly presumes a direct line of inheritance from RALO leadership >thru ALAC representation. We know it is a presumption without merit, >especially if worthwhile contributions to policy discussions is the >objective for the At-Large in ICANN. > >It is always wrong to think of travel funding to ICANN f2f meeting >as a benefit to a volunteer! It is not and cannot be! > >ALAC representation compels attending three (3) f2f meetings per >annum. They are coincident with the ICANN meetings. In this >context, travel funding is purely part of the infrastructural cost >to fulfill an obligation. Otherwise it is like working for a company >that has business far removed from my place of domicile and expect >performance without provisioning the tools that enable that performance. > >It rankles me personally when my contributions in both time and >treasure to the ICANN enterprise is neither accounted or >valorized. Then insult is added to my injury when some goof equates >a trip sitting in steerage for upwards of 17+ hours [the flight time >from Chicago to New Delhi] as a benefit! > >I travel by air a lot for work; the miles are now counted in >millions. In the years I sat as an ALAC member + the incumbent >Secretariat for LACRALO and as a senior staffer at The University of >the West Indies, I contributed my vacation time of 3 weeks to ICANN >for attending f2f meetings. This does not count the average 20+ >hours per week I normally dedicate to ICANN matters. Nor my personal >spend of a minimum of US$500 to attend said meetings! These all >contribute to ICANN having a real opportunity to record it is indeed >multi-stakeholder, is fulfilling its AoC obligations and has >contributions from end user representatives to its policy development. > >Back in time, I was roundly criticised by some of my At-Large >colleagues for my position in dealing with so-called ALAC >'tourists'. This matter came to the top in India; LACRALO >representatives to ALAC were accused of abandoning ALAC business for >a tour of Indian tourist sites. This still haunts the At-Large in >ICANN circles. My firm stand against any sanctions or additional >criteria applied for travel support funding was interpreted as >'protecting' the members accused from sanctions for inattention to >duty. That was never my objective and it still is not the case >today. I just cannot accept the notion that travel funding is a >benefit to the volunteer. I shall, on principle, oppose any such >notion, howsoever derived or configured. > >Finally, in the chat we heard talk of a 'reviewer' being appointed. >While the roles and responsibilities of such a person/actor is not >yet outlined, let us be clear to ring fence and give specific >instructions as to what we are trying to achieve here. We must >recognize from principles that volunteers give as much as they can >to the cause. The contributions in time and treasure of a Olivier >Crepin-Leblond or Cheryl Langdon Orr cannot be used as a benchmark >for either engagement or indeed, worthwhile contributions. > >Best, >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= >_______________________________________________ >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…

7 11

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-es] Reflexiones sobre la ELA criterios y expectativas Taskforce
by Alberto Soto Aug. 9, 2015

Aug. 9, 2015

Estimado Carlton, el tema de las disculpas había sido charlado alguna vez hace tiempo en alguna reunión de ALAC, y por eso estaba siendo tratado en LACRALO y quizás no habría que citarlo como una estupidez, sino como una colaboración. Se discutió y se quitó. Además, al momento que se planteó quitarlo, fue quitado. Pese a ello es la tercera vez que lo estás citando como ejemplo. Quizás la mejora del lenguaje en las reuniones y en las listas, sea otra herramienta valiosa para lograr mayor participación. El lenguaje inadecuado, o grosero o insultante, es una causal de alejamiento de los miembros. Saludos Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Enviado el: sábado, 8 de agosto de 2015 8:41 p. m. Para: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: LACRALO-EN <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Reflexiones sobre la ELA criterios y expectativas Taskforce [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Reflexiones sobre la ELA criterios y expectativas Taskforce De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com 1. El reto está ajustando las bases estructurales de la At-Large participación en ICANN y las percepciones de desempeño. Y eso será difícil, en el mejor. Más al punto, no estamos viendo el tipo de pensamiento innovador acerca métricas de rendimiento que haría lo que tú y yo vemos como el valor de venir a la cima. Caso en punto. Tuvimos una situación reciente en LACRALO donde estaba seriamente propuso que si uno envía una disculpa por la falta de asistencia - * NOTA bien, puramente no asistir * - una reunión en línea, que deben ser contados como participación! Y, algunos chico ignorante afirmaría delito si uno fuera a reflexivamente decir en voz alta que la noción expresada ofende incluso la idea de sentido común de lo que es estúpido. -Carlton ============================== Carlton Un Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planeación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Sábado, 08 de agosto 2015 a las 2:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> escribió: > Dear Alan, > > agreed on all your other points. > > On 08/08/2015 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > > 3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, > > enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the > > next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with. > > And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face > meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people > who genuinely want to get involved. It is impossible to build a > relationship with people who do not make the effort to keep involved > in between face to face meetingsMy argument is that we should identify > people who have a genuine interest in helping out and facilitate their > involvement in face to face meetings, more often than at GAs every 5 years. > So far, what I have done is to give excellent references to people > applying for the fellowship program and whom I judge to be of real > potential. But that's not enough since the program is only available > for developing nations. > This is why I would favour the ability for the ALAC to invite people > from their ALSes to an ICANN meeting, based on a skill requirement. > For example, the hot topic is about WHOIS, let's invite people whom we > know to be privacy experts. The hot topic is about ICANN > Accountability - let's invite people who run an ALS that has a need to > impeccable accountability. etc. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/c6dda47f4e.html --]] --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 1

Some thoughts on ALS Criteria & Expectations Taskforce
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 7, 2015

Aug. 7, 2015

I participated in this morning's call and wanted to level the playing field by enunciating some principles and a framework for our discussions. Let's start with some principles. 1) The At-Large is a volunteer-led and fueled organisation and whatever we do MUST be informed by unassailable facts we know of voluntary organisations plus the psychology of voluntarism. 2) Individuals make the worthwhile contributions, not organisations. 3) There is a wide range of motivations for voluntarily contributing and these must be fed for sustaining worthwhile contributions 4) Results matter but volunteer contributions across the board shall always be uneven So now, the framework for discussions. There are structural issues as well as political issues that must be embraced for any viable solution to emerge. The ICANN/RALO MOU is the source of the first structurally-generated challenge. While it recognizes individuals as the providers of policy advice, it locates individual actions in organisations called ALS. And by so doing suggests that value be given to the organisation. Some RALOs, like NARALO, have developed rules that recognize individual contributions but have shoehorned valuation for contribution into an ALS structure. I'm not now sure what the answer should be but I know what we now have is not fit to purpose and objective. Another structural issue. An individual coming to the ICANN policy development ecosystem is going to become a worthwhile contributor by virtue of mental acumen, penchant for hard work and time in place. Time in place is the common criteria for success. So current arrangements give extra value to experienced volunteers. At the same time, new blood is required to sustain the flow of worthwhile contributors. Here's the thing. Face-to-Face (f2f) ICANN meetings are the best platforms to learn and to become familiarized with this complex beast called the ICANN ecosystem. The effectiveness of a volunteer in policy development is directly related to serial opportunity to participate in ICANN f2f meetings. It is no accident that the most impactful groups in ICANN are a) those that get to f2f meetings as 'volunteers' engaged in compensated work b) Those who have the wherewithal to self-fund attendance at ICANN f2f meetings. The task is to develop a framework that strikes a balance which takes into account the need for experienced volunteers with capacity to deliver worthwhile contributions even as we build capacity in newer less-experienced volunteers to sustain the At-Large participation agenda. The current funding model for attendance of At-Large volunteers to ICANN f2f meetings assist ALAC representatives, liaisons from ALAC to qualified SOs/ACs plus named RALO leadership. This construct seemingly presumes a direct line of inheritance from RALO leadership thru ALAC representation. We know it is a presumption without merit, especially if worthwhile contributions to policy discussions is the objective for the At-Large in ICANN. It is always wrong to think of travel funding to ICANN f2f meeting as a benefit to a volunteer! It is not and cannot be! ALAC representation compels attending three (3) f2f meetings per annum. They are coincident with the ICANN meetings. In this context, travel funding is purely part of the infrastructural cost to fulfill an obligation. Otherwise it is like working for a company that has business far removed from my place of domicile and expect performance without provisioning the tools that enable that performance. It rankles me personally when my contributions in both time and treasure to the ICANN enterprise is neither accounted or valorized. Then insult is added to my injury when some goof equates a trip sitting in steerage for upwards of 17+ hours [the flight time from Chicago to New Delhi] as a benefit! I travel by air a lot for work; the miles are now counted in millions. In the years I sat as an ALAC member + the incumbent Secretariat for LACRALO and as a senior staffer at The University of the West Indies, I contributed my vacation time of 3 weeks to ICANN for attending f2f meetings. This does not count the average 20+ hours per week I normally dedicate to ICANN matters. Nor my personal spend of a minimum of US$500 to attend said meetings! These all contribute to ICANN having a real opportunity to record it is indeed multi-stakeholder, is fulfilling its AoC obligations and has contributions from end user representatives to its policy development. Back in time, I was roundly criticised by some of my At-Large colleagues for my position in dealing with so-called ALAC 'tourists'. This matter came to the top in India; LACRALO representatives to ALAC were accused of abandoning ALAC business for a tour of Indian tourist sites. This still haunts the At-Large in ICANN circles. My firm stand against any sanctions or additional criteria applied for travel support funding was interpreted as 'protecting' the members accused from sanctions for inattention to duty. That was never my objective and it still is not the case today. I just cannot accept the notion that travel funding is a benefit to the volunteer. I shall, on principle, oppose any such notion, howsoever derived or configured. Finally, in the chat we heard talk of a 'reviewer' being appointed. While the roles and responsibilities of such a person/actor is not yet outlined, let us be clear to ring fence and give specific instructions as to what we are trying to achieve here. We must recognize from principles that volunteers give as much as they can to the cause. The contributions in time and treasure of a Olivier Crepin-Leblond or Cheryl Langdon Orr cannot be used as a benchmark for either engagement or indeed, worthwhile contributions. Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 7, 2015

Aug. 7, 2015

Dear All, the two Webinars have taken place. Note the full presentation slide deck of the ICG can be accessed on: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/XPL-ICAN_1510_ICG_Report_Visual_… Also, recordings/transcripts of the ICG presentation can be found on: https://www.ianacg.org/coordination-group/icg-archives/ Please consider listening to the recording(s), looking at the presentation slides, reading the transcript(s) - and then comment on the public comment process in the At-Large Space devoted to this: https://community.icann.org/x/LY1CAw Kind regards, Olivier On 05/08/2015 00:03, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > ICANN News Alert > ICANN <https://www.icann.org/> > > > News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-04-en > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to Host > Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment > > 4 August 2015 > > The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will hold two > webinars regarding the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. > Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information > Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. The > webinars will help the public understand the proposal, the purpose of > the ICG's public comment period, and how to provide public comments. > Topics covered will include: > > * What are the IANA functions? > * What is the IANA stewardship transition? > * What is being proposed for the transition of the IANA stewardship? > * Why is the ICG seeking public comments? > * What should commenters focus on? > > The ICG will hold two webinars at different times to facilitate > participation across the time zones: > > * Thursday 6 August 2015 from 19:00-20:30 UTC (time zone converter > here: > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+Webinar+1&iso=…) > > * Friday 7 August 2015 from 11:00-12:30 UTC (time zone converter > here: > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+Webinar+2&iso=…) > > > The webinars will include about 45 minutes of presentation material > and 45 minutes of Q&A. > > > Webinar details > > The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/ > <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/>. Please note that the webinar > will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. > Live interpretation will be available through Adigo Bridge dial-in > numbers using Conference ID codes listed below. > A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here: > http://adigo.com/icann/ <http://adigo.com/icann/>. Should there be no > appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG > Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service > to that individual – please send dial-out requests to the ICG > Secretariat at admin(a)icgsec.asia <mailto:admin@icgsec.asia>. > Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below: > > * English – Conference ID: 92957255 > * Français – Conference ID: 75929475 > * Español – Conference ID: 68385764 > * 中文 – Conference ID: 825702 > * Pусский – Conference ID: 345720 > * العربية – Conference ID: 82855066 > * Português – Conference ID: 759752 > > For further information about the IANA stewardship transition > proposal, please see https://comments.ianacg.org. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment period open for Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1)
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Aug. 3, 2015

Aug. 3, 2015

Dear all, The second public comment period for the CCWG-Accountability proposal is about to begin. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment period open for Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) > Fecha: 3 de agosto de 2015 16:56:29 GMT-5 > Para: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > > > Announcing the public comment period is now open for the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report (Work Stream 1) > > Please see the following link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> > > Comments close on 12 Sep 2015 23:59 UTC > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

1 0

John Jeffrey blog on .africa IRP
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Dear ALAC and AFRALO, Please find below a link to ICANN General Counsel's blog on the .africa IRP ruling. > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/africa-irp-declaration-clearing-up-some-fac… > Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Fwd: US Circuit Court Upholds ICANN's Defense of the New gTLD Program
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

FYI ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= [image: ICANN] <https://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-31-en ------------------------------ US Circuit Court Upholds ICANN's Defense of the New gTLD Program 31 July 2015 *Los Angeles, California*... The United States' Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of antitrust and other claims against ICANN made by a company called name.space, related to ICANN's new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program, in an opinion published today <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/namespace-ninth-circuit-affirmi…> [PDF, 116 KB]. In 2013, a federal district court dismissed all of name.space's claims, and today the Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in all respects. name.space alleged that ICANN violated the Sherman Act, and various trademark and other laws, in establishing the New gTLD Program and setting the application fee for new gTLD applications at US$185,000. name.space also suggested that ICANN should set aside names found in name.space's “alternative internet.” The plaintiff claimed that the rules and procedures governing the 2012 New gTLD Program Application Round were the result of an illegal conspiracy between ICANN, its board members and domain-name industry insiders, citing U.S. antitrust law (specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act). "We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit agreed with the dismissal of the claims against ICANN in this matter", said John Jeffrey, ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary. "The rules and procedures governing the New gTLD Program were created through a global, inclusive, open and multistakeholder process, following a bottom-up policy development process leading to consensus-based policy recommendations. Accordingly, the Court found it could not "infer an anticompetitive agreement' from the facts presented in this case." In finding in favor of ICANN, the Court determined that “ICANN is not a competitor” in the three relevant markets the plaintiff identified as the basis of its monopolization claim (citing the tests from Section 2 of the Sherman Act): 1. The market to act as a TLD registry; 2. The international market for domain names; 3. The market for blocking or defensive registration services. Finally, the Court also found that name.space's trademark claims were not ripe, and its common law claims did not allege sufficient facts to be able to state a claim against ICANN. ICANN was represented in this matter by Jones Day.

1 0

Fwd: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

FYI & A ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= [image: ICANN] <https://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en ------------------------------ Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations 31 July 2015 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 31 July 2015 *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…) which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSO processes, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#foot1> subject to ICANN Board approval. Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c) the ICANN Board has directed that these proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration. *Public Comment Box Link:* https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en 1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#note1>These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposed ICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board.

1 0