September 2015 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

LAST DAY - CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Dear All, This is to remind you that At-Large's internal commenting period for the draft ALAC Statement in response to the Public Comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures<https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw> will end today at 23:59 UTC. The draft, as well as pertinent resources for this Public Comment, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Nevertheless, comments submitted after 30 September 23:59 UTC will likely not be considered by the penholder(s) or incorporated in the final Statement. If you have input on the draft, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don't have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Ariel Liang Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Fwd to the ALAC list From: Olivier Crepin Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 10:23 AM To: "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ICANN GTLD WG list <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures [ I've modified the distribution & added both new gTLD WG list & ALAC list - when you reply, you might get a bounce from the new gTLD list if you're not in the WG but staff will do the magic to unlock you message ] Just a few notes: - the Preliminary Issues Report is long (147 pages) but needs to be read thoroughly. - the draft ALAC Statement addresses only those points which Carlton and I felt were important to address. If you see anything else in the Preliminary Issues Report that requires our attention, please flag it as soon as possible so we can add it. - I know that some in our community are saying: "no more new gTLDs / ban on new gTLD rounds", or "no more new gTLDs until we see a demonstration that the first round has served the public interest". Please note that the current issues report says that the default is that the program *will continue with a next round*. Having spent time on the gNSO council participating in the discussions, it is clear that there is a very strong pressure from Contracted Parties and some parts of the Non-Contracted parties (some of whom might be interested in being part of the next application round) that *want* a next round to take place *as soon as possible*. Unless you are ready to enter a trench war with the GNSO, I would not recommend that we ask for an outright indefinite ban on new gTLDs -- because since the working group will be a GNSO working group, we'll all end up being completely ignored from day 1. Carlton and I have therefore taken the stance that if there is going to be another round, *all* the issues identified in the issues report, and other issues we have pointed out, need to be both studied and resolved. Even that is going to be a very hard point to defend, but it is absolutely worth defending - if/when the working group gets under way, please take part in the WG. - If the At-Large Community would like next round of new gTLDs promoting applicants from developing economies, the ALAC might need to support a next round sooner rather than later. Kind regards, Olivier On 23/09/2015 14:07, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > On behalf of the ALAC, Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Carlton Samuels have > developed the first draft ALAC Statement in response to the Public Comment on > the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures > <https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw> . The draft, as well as pertinent > resources for the Public Comment, can be found in its wiki workspace here: > https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw. All At-Large members are welcome to > comment on this draft. > > Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit > it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 30 September 2015. You > will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don¹t have > a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact > <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. > > Inputs submitted in this mailing list will be transferred to the wiki > workspace for the penholder(s) to keep track of the community comments and > take them into consideration when finalizing the draft. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine > and Terri Agnew > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> www.facebook.com/icann > <http://www.facebook.com/icann> atlarge > <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> ICANNAtLarge > <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> >

1 0

Selection of Pre-Dublin ALAC Leadership Training Program attendees
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

As you will recall, the ALAC is allocated five positions in the Pre-Dublin Leadership Training Program (LTP). The leadership of each RALO was requested to identify two candidates. The ALAC is asked to identify a selection that is a mix of relatively new person needing training and ones with significant ICANN experience. AFRALO had previously asked that Seun Ojedeji be named in order to ensure timely visa processing for him. The ALAC and Liaisons to ICANN SO/ACs met in camera (with no outsiders) today to discuss the candidates and make a final selection. Those chosen were: APRALO: Maureen Hilyard EURALO: Yrjö Länsipuro LACRALO: Harold Arcos NARALO: Judith Hellerstein There is a possibility that Harold will not be able to obtain a visa in sufficient time to attend the LTP (or perhaps even the entire ICANN meeting). I will work with LACRALO leadership to consider alternatives if we discover that the visa issue for Harold cannot be overcome. Alan

1 0

Review ATLAS II Recommendation 7 and 13
by Ariel Liang Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear All, During today¹s IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability WG <https://community.icann.org/x/nJVYAw> call, participants discussed ATLAS II Recommendation #7 and #13 and concluded that the ALAC needs to further review them. The goal is to understand what exactly the ALAC wants out of these two recommendations in relations to the organizational reviews of ICANN. Please follow the links to review the recommendations and the notes: Rec 7: https://community.icann.org/x/MJZCAw Rec 13: https://community.icann.org/x/PZZCAw Best Regards, Ariel 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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> ICANNAtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Liaison appointments for 2015-16
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2015

Sept. 21, 2015

Our current ALAC-appointed Liaisons are: GNSO: Olivier Crepin-Leblond ccNSO: Maureen Hilyard SSAC: Julie Hammer .mobi: Murray McKercher According to ALAC RoP 18.2, "By the decision of the ALAC, a current Appointee who is willing to continue in that role may be reconfirmed instead of initiating a new selection process." Following consultation with ALAC Members, I conclude that there is widespread agreement that we extend the appointment of all four Liaisons for the coming year. I will be asking that the ALAC make a formal decision on this at the ALAC meeting on Tuesday. If you will not be able to attend the meeting, please arrange with another ALAC member to vote on your behalf, and notify At-Large Staff of this arrangement. You may either instruct the proxy-holder how to vote, or you may allow them to vote as they wish (<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2013-04>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2013-04, Section 12.3) Alan

4 6

Re: [ALAC] New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Thank you Eduardo. Ariel, please take note of Eduardo as penholder. At 17/09/2015 12:12 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >I can volunteer for that. > >-ed > >On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:49 PM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >As you all know, there has been an ongoing discussion on how to use >the New gTLD Auction proceeds (currently almost US$60,000,000). There >were sessions discussing this in Buenos Aires. >The current plan is to have a drafting group create a charter for a >Cross-Community Working Group which will recommend how the proceeds >are to be used. As a prelude to this, a Discussion Paper has been >published and is now open for Public Comment. >As the ALAC has been very vocal on this subject, I believe that we >should issue a comment, even if it is only to say that the Discussion >Paper is a good start and that the ALAC will participate in the CWG. >We need a volunteer to take responsibility for drafting such a statement. >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

Use of Country and Territory Names/Codes as Top-Level Domains
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

As you may know, there is a joint ccNSO-GNSO Cross-Community Working group on the use of country and territory names as Top Level Domains (CWG-UCTN). The CWG is soliciting input on the use of three-letter country codes - see https://community.icann.org/x/VIxYAw and https://community.icann.org/x/X7XhAg. Cheryl is the only active At-Large participant in the CWG. In general, the ALAC has taken the position that there should be no restrictions on the use of formal country/territory names for 2nd-level domain names, but had not considered their use as top-level domains in recent years. The three-letter codes were not available for assignment during the first round of new gTLDs. We are looking for a volunteer to, in consultation with Cheryl, review whether an ALAC statement is necessary and advisable, and if so to draft such a statement. Please redistribute this to your RALOs if you feel that appropriate. Alan

1 0

New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

As you all know, there has been an ongoing discussion on how to use the New gTLD Auction proceeds (currently almost US$60,000,000). There were sessions discussing this in Buenos Aires. The current plan is to have a drafting group create a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group which will recommend how the proceeds are to be used. As a prelude to this, a Discussion Paper has been published and is now open for Public Comment. As the ALAC has been very vocal on this subject, I believe that we should issue a comment, even if it is only to say that the Discussion Paper is a good start and that the ALAC will participate in the CWG. We need a volunteer to take responsibility for drafting such a statement. Alan

2 1

CCWG Accountability Face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

As you probably know, there will be a face-to-face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability in Los Angeles on 25-26 September 2015 (the end of next week). This meeting was only arranged last week and the time-line is very tight. Normally for such meetings, only the Members formally appointed by their AC/SOs is funded to attend. We expect all five ALAC Members to be present (Alan, Cheryl, Leon, Sebastien and Tijani). At the CCWG meeting held earlier today, it was announced that funding would be provided for one additional person from each SO/AC. I have consulted with the other CCWG Members as well as the ALAC Leadership Team. The two people who are CCWG Participants and have been the most active are Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Seun Ojedeji. Olivier's schedule will make it very difficult for him to participate in the full two-day meeting. Seun, despite past visa issues, does have a valid visa for the US and is available to travel if he can start travel planning immediately, so I believe that he is the logical additional person to represent us at the meeting. Alan

7 6

Consensus Call: ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

At our ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft and submit a statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws to be ratified by the Board. As requested, the statement sends exactly the same message has we have send to the two previous public comments the WG Recommendations. Specifically we have concerns about whether the GNSO can properly defend user and public interest if and when it may conflict with contracted party needs, and we have concerns that implementation of complex issues may take very long if there are multiple needs to revert to the GNSO for additional deliberations. Given the late timing of this statement, I asked that it be reviewed by those in At-Large most deeply involved in the process. Since we are supporting the recommended changes, but have concerns about the long-term implications, the statement take the form of formal advise to the Board that both of these concerns is that both issues be monitored to detect any negative implications. The statement is appended below. With this message, I am issuing a Consensus Call on this statement to end at 23:59 on Friday, 18 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. In the absence of significant opposition, this statement will be deemed to be ratified. Alan ============= ALAC and At-Large representatives were very active in the Policy and Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations. The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout the WG processes. 1. GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that contracted parties can be greatly impacted by GNSO policy decision outcomes, they have strong motivation to actively participate in policy development working groups, and are often well funded to do so. Those representing users and the public interest such as At-Large or non-commercial users' constituencies are less able to participate on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for WG participation to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the Contracted House Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and the needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution. 2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution supports the concept of the GNSO being the sole gTLD policy body, the ALAC is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD process and future directory services solutions, the number of such referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process. As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but Advises the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.

2 1