March 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [council] FW: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 26, 2016

March 26, 2016

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:51:11 +0000 From: James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Council Colleagues - For your review, please see the attached letter from Steve Crocker to the chairs of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT), and the PDP WG on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Thank you, J. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org <mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 13:47 To: "zuck(a)ACTonline.org <mailto:zuck@ACTonline.org>" <zuck(a)ACTonline.org <mailto:zuck@ACTonline.org>>, "avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "scoates(a)twitter.com <mailto:scoates@twitter.com>" <scoates(a)twitter.com <mailto:scoates@twitter.com>>, "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org <mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, "Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>" <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, "gacsec(a)icann.org <mailto:gacsec@icann.org>" <gacsec(a)icann.org <mailto:gacsec@icann.org>>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org <mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>> Subject: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs Dear Jonathan, Avri, Stephen, and Jeff, Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding concerns raised by the ALAC and GAC around the effectiveness of the contracted PICs for the GAC Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs (“Safeguard PICs”). With warm regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: 1-310-773-6811 Office: 1-310-578-8695

6 7

Fwd: [IANA-issues] Fwd: [ianatransition] A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance
by Maureen Hilyard March 20, 2016

March 20, 2016

WOW.. what else is happening that we don't know about? so much for transparency! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Date: Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [IANA-issues] Fwd: [ianatransition] A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Hello all, just to add my points of view on this, which I have shared in another list: --- cut here --- When the proposal will be up for Public Comment, I am sure that the At-Large Advisory Committee will have comments. For the time being, I personally have noted two main points: 1. That the whole discussion of the agreement between ICANN and Verisign is fraught with secrecy. Whilst the whole Community was involved with the CWG IANA Stewardship and CCWG Accountability, the actual relationship between Verisign & ICANN was launched as a separate process that concerned only Verisign & ICANN. We are seeing the same pattern as for the establishment of the Registry and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements - and when the ALAC has enquired about this in the past, it was told "these are commercial agreements that you have no business putting your nose in". So much for transparency. And unfortunately this lack of transparency is vehemently defended by contracted parties. So the community has **little or no influence** in what the relationship with Verisign will be. 2. Because of (1), the community has very little knowledge of what the exact current terms of contract are with Verisign. We were told that the provision of the IANA Operator services was provided in the past at cost. Now we're told there will be compensation. We're also told that there will be "certain service level agreements" -- when the set of service level expectations negotiated between ICANN and the Operational Communities is very close to being completed already. We're also told that the function could be transitioned "after an agreed-upon number of years" when the community powers could be effected as soon as they are in place. And finally, I note that it appears that the .com Registry Agreement has been linked to the RZMA "which ICANN and Verisign believed enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure". I'd like to get SSAC's point of view on this. That's all for the time being. I am eagerly waiting for the Public Comment period. Kindest regards, Olivier (own views) On 20/03/2016 09:56, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ianatransition] A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:35:53 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> To: ianatransition(a)icann.org <ianatransition(a)icann.org> <ianatransition(a)icann.org> Original link: <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta… . A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> On 10 March 2016, a plan to transition the IANA stewardship from the U.S. government's oversight to a global multistakeholder community was submitted to NTIA for consideration. Witnessing the extraordinary efforts of the multistakeholder community to develop these proposals has been impressive and humbling. While the community has been working hard to finalize the proposals included in the plan, my team and I have been diligently preparing for the implementation phase of the anticipated IANA stewardship transition. One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root ZoneMaintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. Today, I want to provide you with some background information on the RZMA and an update on our progress. As noted in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal, the complete and finalized transition requires revising the relationship between the current IANA Functions Operator (ICANN), the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign) and the current Root Zone Administrator (NTIA). Specifically, the role of NTIA will be eliminated and a written agreement between ICANN and Verisign establishing each party's role will need to be in place once that happens. On 4 March 2015, NTIA officially requested that ICANN and Verisign work together to develop a proposal on how best to transition NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone management. Of paramount importance is accomplishing this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone management process. ICANN and Verisign are close to having terms and conditions that accomplish this essential objective and that clearly define the respective roles and responsibilities of each party. In general, we have already agreed that Verisign will be compensated for performance of the maintainer function and will have obligations to meet certain service-level agreements (SLAs) that the parties may adjust to address recommendations of the Customer Standing Committee pursuant to a change control process anticipated in the agreement. This change process is being defined to allow for the community to introduce through ICANN improvements to the Root Zone Management System as well. While the term of the RZMA is intended to promote the security, stability and resiliency of root zone maintenance operations by having Verisign continue in its role, the agreement also provides a capability for the community, through a consensus-based community-driven process, to cause ICANN to transition the function to another service provider after an agreed-upon number of years. There are some remaining issues that need to be resolved before we finalize a draft of the agreement. It's difficult to enumerate these issues because discussions are ongoing and the status of the issues changes frequently. However, we are making good progress and expect to complete a draft soon. Once ICANN and Verisign have completed the draft agreement, it will be posted for a 30-day community review period. This is in accordance with ICANN's transparency as well as in keeping with the recommendation in the ICG proposal to make the draft proposal available for public review prior to execution. There is still work to do but we are making good progress. I encourage you to explore the web pages listed below for more information and to keep abreast of the latest developments. - Root Zone Administrator Proposal Related to the IANA Functions Stewardship Transition <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pr…> [PDF, 247 KB] - IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> - IANA Stewardship and Accountability <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> _______________________________________________ Iana-issues mailing listIana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Iana-issues mailing list Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues

1 0

Board approved Resolutions March 9&10
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Dear ALAC, The ICANN board meeting resolutions from March 9 and 10 March have been posted: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-09-en https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en You will be able to see the list of venues for ICANN meetings up till 2018 from the resolutions on March 9. The main resolutions on March 10 focus on the IANA Stewardship Transition proposals. Best regards, Rinalia

7 10

Fwd: ALAC Public announcement - FINAL
by Alan Greenberg March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

>To: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ALAC Public announcement - FINAL > >Heidi, can you please arrange that this statement be appropriately >distributed the ICANN communications team. > >Alissa, For your distribution as you think appropriate. > >Alan > >====================== > >The ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) wishes to express its >pleasure that following two years of concerted effort, the IANA >Stewardship Transition Coordination Group's (ICG) Proposal to >Transition the Stewardship of IANA Functions from the U.S. Commerce >Department's National Telecommunications and Information >Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community >coupled with the Proposal to improve ICANN Accountability have been >delivered to the NTIA. > >The ALAC has been an integral part of the groups developing the >plans for the transition of the IANA Domain Names functions and for >improving ICANN Accountability. It is clear that the effort is not >yet complete, as the implementation of these plans is still ahead of >us. Accordingly, the ALAC commits to continue to put all necessary >resources into ensuring that the accountability implementation can >be done in a timely manner honoring the plans crafted by the >multistakeholder community. In the event that the U.S. Department of >Commerce accepts the IANA transition proposal, the ALAC similarly >commits work diligently to see the transition implemented.

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline for WS1 Bylaws
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

FYI. We’ll be having a tight timeline (again) Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> > Asunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline for WS1 Bylaws > Fecha: 9 de marzo de 2016, 5:38:00 p.m. GMT > Para: "'CCWG Accountability'" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > > Hello everyone, > > This is a brief update on the next steps for our work on drafting bylaws to implement the CCWG report. The timeline is tight. Read on to see why. > > At our meeting on Friday we discussed the iterative approach for bylaws drafting, with the co-chairs and rapporteurs forming a first line triage team to check consistency between the draft Bylaws and the CCWG Final Report. Then the documents will be public for CCWG scrutiny and comment before being updated. > > We didn’t have a view about timing on Friday other than that it would have to be soon. Now we have some more information on that. > > We co-chairs were joined by rapporteurs at a dinner on Monday night which included CWG reps, Board members and ICANN staff. The purpose was to make sure the implementation process is well coordinated between the groups in the coming weeks. > > Larry Strickling was at the dinner, and he set out his thoughts about timeframes. An important piece of information from him was that the N.T.I.A. won’t complete its review and assessment of the proposal until the bylaws that implement them are in place (with commencement happening post-transition). > > NTIA has said publicly that it plans to complete its report within about 90 days of receiving the Stewardship and Accountability proposals on 10 March, presuming that the Chartering Organisations approve our proposal. That is because they wish to give the U.S. Congress a suitable period of time to consider their report before the Congress goes into recess for the summer on 15 July. > > Taking these two points together, it means we need to fit the following steps and *rough* dates together: > > Friday 8 April: CCWG finishes draft bylaws > > then Board approves draft bylaws for public comment > > Friday 15 April: Open Public Comment for bylaws > > Sunday 15 May: Close Public Comment for bylaws > > then Follow up changes to draft Bylaws based on public comments > and > CCWG sign off of final draft bylaws > > Tuesday 31 May: Board approves draft bylaws > > > In our view, this timeframe is tight but manageable. > > We are in discussion with our external Counsel about how to progress the draft Bylaws over the next couple of weeks. They have some ideas that include intensive discussions with ICANN legal, who know the bylaws well, and will be working on the quick production of a first draft set of bylaws. > > The Implementation Oversight Team will do a very rapid turnaround on the draft, and get it out to you asap, along with a note from our lawyers to confirm compliance with our report. Our intention is that there is at least four days and preferably a week for review and comments for CCWG members and participants. Then the draft bylaws will be finalised taking those comments into account, and given to the Board who we expect will rapidly put them out for public comment. > > It’s important for us all to see this as a translation exercise: turning our Proposal into Bylaws. Because of the work we have all done, the intention of the Proposal is clear. Turning that into draft Bylaws language should be reasonably straightforward, and if there are areas of dispute and disagreement, they should be few. > > > We will have the chance to discuss this schedule at our implementation meeting on Thursday, but we invite you to consider the draft schedule above, the realities driving it, and to discuss all this in the lead up to our meeting. > > > Best, > > Mathieu, Thomas and Leon. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Fwd: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

I can just say I am extremely happy. FYI Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au> > Asunto: GAC Response to CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal > Fecha: 9 de marzo de 2016, 12:17:19 a.m. GMT > Para: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> > Cc: "gac-leadership(a)icann.org" <gac-leadership(a)icann.org> > > Dear Co-Chairs > > Attached please find a letter from the Chair of the GAC, Thomas Schneider, concerning the GAC’s response to the CCWG Supplemental Final Proposal. > > Regards > > > Tom Dale > ACIG GAC Secretariat >

16 16

The Ten Worst Top Level Domains
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Hello all, as you know, the ALAC has been wondering about whether new gTLDs brought consumer trust. Well - an organisation has released a list of gTLDs that don't appear to be as trustworthy as others when it comes to spam. https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/728/spamhaus-presents-the-worlds-wors… Since this relates to spam, and we are concerned about universal acceptance of new gTLDs, how likely is it that some of the TLDs listed might be blacklisted in mailers in the future? Kindest regards, Olivier

5 6

Re: [ALAC] [registration-issues-wg] The Ten Worst Top Level Domains
by Evan Leibovitch March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

As someone who, in a former life, owned a domain that was incorrectly blacklisted, I can say that the procedure to request a review/removal was fairly easy. But that’s not really an issue of universal acceptance - it’s more directly >> related to “abuse”, how it’s handled and that most networks are private so >> the operators will protect them > > If an innocent registrant is affected as collateral damage because a registry's policies (and/or lack of enforcement) are widespread enough to cause the whole TLD to be blocked by trusted entities(*), that is most certainly a UA issue. Certainly not everyone here would agree with me when I assert that the high level of abuse brings the entire new namespace into disrepute. But when "who can I trust?" needs to become a factor in choosing a TLD, I think that's a problem for the whole ecosystem. - Evan (*) Even if *you* don't much trust Spamhaus' judgements, significant numbers do.

2 1

Location -DNS WOMEN
by Vanda Scartezini March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

DNS WOMEN BREAKFAST meeting tomorrow MONDAY 7th at 7:00 hours MORNING - at JARDAIN ANDALOUSS inside the PALACE HOTEL, the hotel closest to convention center here in Marrakech. The place is located inside the hotel complex, but about 5-10 minutes walking depend upon the speed you walk. Enter hotel, pass to the swimming pool area . I will see if there are clear signs alerting about he path. Wait for you all there. kisses Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings

4 4

GSE Slides from ALAC Work Part 1 Session
by Heidi Ullrich March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Dear All, Please find attached the GSE slides from the ALAC Work Part 1 Session. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Senior Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 E-mail: 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> [unknown.png]

1 0