November 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Questions for Steve Crocker
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

Here are several questions. 1. In our reply to the Board's question on Trust, we said that the Board needed to follow not only the word of the Bylaws, but the intent. What can we expect to see in terms of Board openness and transparency? 2. As you enter into your last year on the Board and last year as Chair, what are you most proud of having accomplished, and what do you most regret NOT having accomplished (using your crystal ball to predict the outcomes of the upcoming year). 3. The ATRT2 had two recommendations say that the Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players.

1 0

Report from participating as a newbie into ICANN#56
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 6, 2016

Nov. 6, 2016

Dear ALAC and RALO Leaders, I thought I would share this report with you. It is a personal initiative of the IETF Liaison to the ICANN Board (permission was given to share the report where it can be helpful). There are constructive suggestions on what may help end users who walk into an ICANN meeting with no previous understanding of the organisation or community. Best regards, Rinalia -- Rinalia

9 8

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

On 5 November 2016 at 19:16, <bzs(a)theworld.com> wrote: > The IGOs (et al) assert by international treaty a higher or alternate > force -- than the usual common and legal use of the term "trademark" > -- embedded in international law to protect their marks. > Voila. The GNSO -- domain buyers and sellers divorced from the realities of the rest of the world -- sees name protection as nothing more than a matter of trademark; one of its stakeholder groups exist for no other reason than to assert this. So anything else is deemed out of scope. In addition to ALAC supporting Red Cross protection in 2012-13 (in opposition to most of the GNSO), there have been some within At-Large who identified other non-traditional forms of intellectual property used in the world (such as aboriginal traditional wisdom); they too were also blown off. But At-Large doesn't have the "or else" threat that governments possess, so its issues can be -- and have been -- harmlessly ignored.) As Barry noted, ICANN was alerted about the IGO issue in 2011. The current outrage at bypassing process conveniently forgets that once upon a time they tried to play the game by the usual rules and were blown off. So the conventional process failed. Start all over again! > Not necessarily. As I have repeatedly mentioned, the concept of the Cross-Community Working Group is a great step in the right direction as it brings in other concerned groups as equal, not subservient, to the GNSO's. It ap p ears to have worked well for the IANA transition. Eventually the PDP must evolve towards a CCWG-like structure if more IGO -t ype of conflict is to be avoided going forward. I t is too late to use this to claw back some of ICANN's most critical core mistakes (such as the choice to get involved in name protection at all). But going forward, expanding decision-making beyond the domain buyer-seller compact is critical going forward. - Evan

1 0

Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

Dear All, Wafa Dahmani, ALAC Member from the African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO) and John Laprise, member of the North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) have developed the first draft ALAC Statement on the Middle East and Adjoining Countries 2016-2019 Strategy<https://community.icann.org/x/FInDAw>. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/FInDAw. 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 07 November 2016 before the At-Large Leadership Wrap Up Session 3 on 15:15 UTC (local Hyderabad time, UTC + 5:30). 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>. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: 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

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-es] Felicitaciones a León Sánchez 2016 Leadership award Winner
by Vanda Scartezini Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

Leon has done much more than expected and due such effort the results were achieved in the best way. He desserves all our recognition! Congratulations and contínuos success!! 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. [cid:image001.png@01D2375A.8BCE40A0] From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Rosa Delgado <rosa(a)delgado.aero> Date: Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 11:40 AM To: Adrian Carballo <ainfodata(a)gmail.com> Cc: "lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Felicitaciones a León Sánchez 2016 Leadership award Winner +1 para congratular a Leon por el muy merecido reconocimiento por su ardua labor y Leadership en el ambito de ICANN !! Saludos / Rosa On 05 Nov 2016, at 06:56, Adrian Carballo <ainfodata(a)gmail.com<mailto:ainfodata@gmail.com>> wrote: Estimados. Me sumo a las Felicitaciones a Felipe Leon Sanchez por su logro. Saludos cordiales. Adrian Carballo Presidente Fundacion Incluirme Enviado desde mi smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensaje original -------- De: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>> Fecha: 5/11/16 09:59 (GMT+05:30) A: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] Felicitaciones a León Sánchez 2016 Leadership award Winner Estimados, Quiero felicitar a León Sánchez por haber obtenido el premio como uno de los líderes del año 2016. De seguro es un reconocimiento a su gran trabajo en la transición de IANA. Un ejemplo a seguir!!!! Saludos Enviado desde mi iPhone _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> wrote: walking chains of references is mind numbing, but it what web browsers do > all the time (as I mentioned, often hundreds of times a minute for each > separate user's web browser) and also what DNSSEC user software can do > within milliseconds. > I consider myself a not-unsophistcated user of Internet-access software, to the point that I serve as informal tech support for far more people than I'd like. The page that Google Chrome provides when it's confused by a certificate instance is as oppressive as the Blue Screen of Death. The other browsers are even worse. We're generations away from the level of simplicity that would be needed to eliminate web-based scammers by digitally flagging them as such. ICANN has an interesst in accelerating this progress, for the sake of public trust and stability, but it certainly ought not to do this itself. That's what I meant by being part of alliances rather than engage in mission creep. > IGO name protection is not a DNS issue; it ought to be far outside ICANN's > scope. > Ought to, sure, but it's way too late for that debate now. ICANN got itself sucked into name protection long ago, and that can't be undone. So now telling the world that coke.foo needs (and has) elaborate protection mechamisms (even going beyond global trademark norms), but that redcross.foo has none of those protections and won't ever get them, is not an exercise in trust-building. And, as a non-treaty organization, ICANN is highly dependent on public trust. Unfortunately, thanks to choices already made by ICANN, the challenges here have been irreversibly rendered political rather than technical. And "Let them eat SSL" does not make for a winning political strategy. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 5, 2016

Nov. 5, 2016

On 5 November 2016 at 01:14, Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> wrote: > For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already > have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established > certificate authorities around the world. > Funny, that doesn't appear to be sufficient for trademark holders. If it was simple as that we wouldn't need clearing houses and adjudication procedures whose resolution isn't done just by algorithm. Yet ICANN has seemed fit to bestow this myriad of non-technical protection measures to trademarks, but is satisfied to stop short of offering similar protection to non-commercial trustworthy names. So *this* is the place to draw the line and say "no more protections"? Good luck with that. > any consumer can walk up the certificate chain to check that they are > chatting with the IGO itself and not a fake. This is the point at which I stopped reading. To expect Internet end-users -- especially newcomers -- to understand (let alone trace and discern legitimate certificates from fakes) Internet digital signatures is a recipe for utter failure. Unless and until that process is seamless globally, it is a wholly unsatisfactory solution. Maybe the answer is not completely within ICANN's remit but it absolutely within mandate to maintain trust in the DNS. So perhaps partnership with other bodies is in order, to strengthen and simplify the infrastructure and to engage in public education on self-defence. ICANN has traditionaly avoided such alliances, perhaps it is time to re-think. But really? It's up to Internet end-users to "walk up the certificate chain" else they deserve to be scammed? And trademark holders get preferential treatment over names created by international treaty? If that's the best ICANN can do in response to this kind of challenge, you might as well start prepping for another transition. - Evan

1 0

LAST CALL: Please comment on ATLAS II Recommendations Implementation Report
by Ariel Liang Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please be so kind to review the ATLAS II Recommendations Implementation Report and provide your final comment by Saturday 5 November COB (18:30 local time in Hyderabad). This is your last chance to provide your comments before the ALAC ratification and submission to the ICANN Board. Please add your comments and suggestions directly on the google document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19sgzpi6DnDfrTjRG6_tl4dHwn1xlkIfTIQRKde0… Thank you for your input! Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: ariel.liang.icann Mobile: +1 (310) 804-2761 Email: ariel.liang(a)icann.org Website: atlarge.icann.org Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge

2 1

Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Over the last months I have done a lot of thinking and talking about how to make ALSes effective - specifically to set reasonable expectations that will allow At-Large and its ALSes to be critical and useful parts of the ICANN ecosystem. Please find attached an analysis of where I think we are today, why we are here, and how we should move forward. I believe that we need a realistic plan and we should not just wait for the independent review to tell us what to do. Alan

7 9

Re: [ALAC] Document for discussion during Friday's ALS Expectations session
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

+1 on all points. -Carlton On Nov 3, 2016 2:37 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: Dear Alan, On 02/11/2016 19:58, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > I wholeheartedly agree that the 200+ strong ALS network could and > should be used more for disseminating information about ICANN in their > countries and regions. This ties in nicely with what I have > understood to be Göran's focus on a more understandable grassroots > communication of ICANN's new narrative. > > > However, I would like to suggest that the original idea of having > ALS's to contribute to the At Large advice development process, in > spite of disappointments, would be kept alive and not seen as a dead > end, to be replaced with the new communication/information > orientation. I see the two as parallel and mutually reinforcing > efforts. As you say, the new role of ALS's may make them more > knowledgeable and help to fullfill the original target (ALS input into > the advice processes.) > I completely agree with Yrjö. As a RALO Chair, I object to becoming a mere unpaid part of ICANN's communication machine. If end users are to learn about ICANN's activities, it is because they need to be given the bylaw-mandated ability to bring their point of view into the ICANN processes. It is not because this is a hard task and because there are barriers, that we should give up. If we did, then we are literally giving up on the bottom-up multistakeholder model. We are ICANN's feet. Rather than giving up on ALS input, we need to implement all of the recommendations which our ALSes have proposed when they met in London in June 2014. The policy management process system; the mapping of competencies in ALSes; the capacity building; the tracking of ICANN stakeholder input balancing, etc. - all of these are unfinished projects. All of these require time and work. All of these are cutting edge, because nobody else is doing this in the world. Nobody. We need to push the frontiers of what can be achieved in bottom-up, grassroots input. We need to work smarter, not harder (TM CLO). If a majority of ALAC representatives really believe that input from the grassroots is impossible, then may I suggest that we close down ALAC altogether and declare ICANN a failed experiment. ICANN version 1 was built on the promise that this was going to be a bottom-up organisation answering the needs of the Internet community at large. Version 2, after the failed 2001 elections, tried to introduce more stability but stripped ICANN of a vital end user influence. Version 2b brought At-Large back to the Board of Directors. Version 3, which you appear to propose, gives the green light to the Domain Industrial Complex to run the show unhindered and for the ALAC to become its willing propaganda dispensing puppet. I'd rather have a root canal than follow this path. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)

1 0