May 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Blog from the Board about Amsterdam Workshop
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

Hello again. Here is a blog from the Board about our Amsterdam workshop and meeting. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-chairman-s-blog-an-update-from-our-may-… Hopefully this will give you a flavour of what was discussed and addressed. Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Fwd: Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

The full set of resolutions from the Board meeting a few days ago. Of particular merit to At-Large and ALAC: - Former ALAC Member John Levine appointed to the SSAC - Public Comment on proposed Conduct at ICANN Meetings revision, addressing harrassment. - Creation of a Board Working Group on Internet Governance (including Rinalia) - Approval of AC/SO budgets as submitted by staff. Alan >From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> >To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> >Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:46:23 +0000 >Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Approved Board >Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > > ><https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en > >From: ><https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en > > >Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >15 May 2016 > >1.Consent Agenda: > > a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >Resolved (2016.05.15.01), the Board approves the >minutes of the 3, 9 and 10 March 2016 Meetings of the ICANN Board. > > > b. Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Appointment > >Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory >Committee (SSAC) reviews its membership and >makes adjustments from time-to-time. > >Whereas, the SSAC Membership Committee, on >behalf of the SSAC, requested that the Board >should appoint John R. Levine to the SSAC for a >three-year term beginning immediately upon >approval by the Board and ><x-apple-data-detectors://3>ending on 31 December 2019. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.02), the Board appoints >John R. Levine to the SSAC for a three-year term >beginning immediately and ><x-apple-data-detectors://4>ending on 31 December 2019. > > > > c. GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016) > >Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section >5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group shall >maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." > >Whereas, the Board has established a Process For >Amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters (the "Process"). > >Whereas, the GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder >Group (RySG), ICANN staff, and the >Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) >have completed all steps identified in the Process. > >Whereas, the amendments appear to address a >number of matters the Board directed to the >RySG's attention in previous Board Resolution Number 2015.10.22.14. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.03), the ICANN Board >approves the RySG Charter Amendments as >documented in the briefing materials submitted >to the Board The RySG and ICANN staff are >directed to provide access to the new governing >document on the appropriate web pages for the >RySG. The Board directs the RySG to review the >changes within one year to determine if they are >having the intended impacts. ICANN staff is >further directed to share this resolution with the leadership of the RySG. > > > > d. Conduct at ICANN Meetings > >Whereas, during and after ICANN55, the issue of >certain community-member conduct toward one >another has been raised in various sessions and lists. > >Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) >has reviewed proposed revisions to the language >of the Expected Standards of Behavior that align >with generally accepted broad standards for >areas of protection, and recommended that the >Board authorize the revised version be posted for public comment. > >Whereas, the BGC also has recommended that the >Board direct the President and CEO, or his >designee(s), to retain an expert, as >appropriate, with experience in drafting and >implementing relevant anti-harassment policies >to assist in the development of a Community >anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.04), the Board hereby >authorizes the posting for public comment of the >proposed revised Expected Standards of Behavior. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.05), the Board hereby >directs the President and CEO, or his >designee(s), to retain an expert, as >appropriate, with experience in drafting and >implementing relevant anti-harassment policies >to assist in the development of a Community >anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed >at ICANN Public Meetings, which could include >items such as complaints handling and resolution and enforcement processes. > > > e. Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) > >Whereas, the Internet governance landscape >continues to evolve, and ICANN's role within the >Internet governance ecosystem will also continue >to evolve and will benefit from an enhanced >dialogue between the Board and management >working on Internet governance issues. > >Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) >has recommended that the Board form a Board >Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) to >provide consultation and advice on ICANN's >efforts related to involvement in Internet >governance work, as appropriate within ICANN's >mission and in service of ICANN's strategic >plan, which includes providing consultation with >ICANN staff on collaboration and engagement in Internet governance activities. > >Whereas, the BGC has recommended that the Board >appoint the following Board members to the >BWG-IG: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Chris >Disspain, Markus Kummer (Chair), Erika Mann, >George Sadowsky and Lousewies van der Laan. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.06), the Board hereby >approves the establishment of a Board Working >Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) in >accordance with the Charter recommended by the >BGC with the following membership: Rinalia Abdul >Rahim, Ron da Silva, Chris Disspain, Markus >Kummer (Chair), Erika Mann, George Sadowsky and Lousewies van der Laan. > > > >2. Main Agenda: > > a. Consideration of GNSO Policy > Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services > >Whereas, on 31 October 2013, the GNSO Council >approved the charter for a Working Group to >conduct a Policy Development Process that had >been requested by the ICANN Board concerning the >accreditation by ICANN of privacy and proxy >domain name registration service providers, as >further described at ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf >[PDF, 463 KB]. > >Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP >steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws, resulting >in a Final Report being delivered to the GNSO Council on 8 December 2015. > >Whereas, the Privacy & Proxy Services >Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG) >reached Full Consensus on all its final >recommendations (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf) >[PDF, 1.2 MB]. > >Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed >the final recommendations of the Privacy & Proxy >Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG, and >adopted the recommendations on 21 January 2016 >by a unanimous vote (see: ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201601>http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201601) > >Whereas, the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded >the required voting threshold (i.e. >supermajority) to impose new obligations on ICANN contracted parties. > >Whereas, in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, a >public comment period was opened on the approved >recommendations to provide the community with a >reasonable opportunity to comment on their >adoption prior to action by the ICANN Board, and >the comments received have been summarized and >reported (see ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ppsai-recommend…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ppsai-recommend…) >[PDF, 299 KB]. > >Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws provide that the Board >is to request the GAC's opinion regarding "any >policies that are being considered by the Board >for adoption that substantially affect the >operation of the Internet or third parties, >including the imposition of any fees or charges" >and "take duly into account any advice timely presented" as a result. > >Whereas, the Board notified the GAC of the >publication of the GNSO's final recommendations >for public comment on 19 February 2016 (see ><https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/2016-02-19-Steve-Cro…>https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/2016-02-19-Steve-Cro…) >[PDF, 819 KB]. > >Whereas, in its Marrakech Communique issued on 9 >March 2016 the GAC advised the ICANN Board that >it needed more time to consider potential public >policy concerns relating to the adoption of the >final PDP recommendations, and identifying that >the June 2016 ICANN56 meeting would be an >appropriate opportunity to further consider >these items (see ><https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/GAC%20Morocco%2055%2…>https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/GAC%20Morocco%2055%2…) >[PDF, 567 KB]. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.07), the Board thanks the >GNSO for completing the Board-requested Policy >Development Process (PDP) and acknowledges >receipt of the PDP Final Report and the GNSO >Council's Recommendations Report concerning the final PDP recommendations. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.08), the Board identifies >that more time is required to consider the final >PDP recommendations, including time for the >provision and consideration of GAC advice, if >any will be provided. The Board anticipates >taking further action on the recommendations at >the first Board meeting following the ICANN56 >Public Meeting in Helsinki, Finland. > > > > b. Report re: .HOTEL > >No resolution taken. > > > C. SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval > >Whereas, prior discussions between community >members and ICANN staff members identified the >need for an earlier decision on the funding of >additional budget requests from ICANN's >Supporting Organizations (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC). > >Whereas, the staff created an SO/AC additional >budget requests process, to collect, review and >submit for Board approval funding requests from the SOs and ACs. > >Whereas, requests were submitted by the ICANN >community by the set deadline, and were reviewed >by a panel of staff members representing the >Policy, Stakeholder Engagement and Finance departments. > >Whereas, the review panel recommended the >approval of requests representing $643,700 for approval. > >Whereas the Board Finance Committee, reviewed >the process followed and the staff proposal, and >has recommended that the Board approve the staff recommendation. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.09), the Board approves >committing $643,700 during Fiscal Year 2017 to >cover the costs associated with the adopted SO/AC additional budget requests. > > >d. October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting > >Whereas, ICANN intended to hold its third Public >Meeting of 2016 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in the North America region. > >Whereas, the Zika Virus outbreak in Puerto Rico >has caused the need for a relocation of the Public Meeting. > >Whereas, ICANN must identify an alternative venue. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.10), the Board authorizes >the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to >engage in and facilitate all necessary >contracting and disbursements for ICANN 57 in an >amount [REDACTED FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES]. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.11), specific items within >this resolution shall remain confidential for >negotiation purposes pursuant to Article III, >section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws until the >President and CEO determines that the confidential information may be released. > > > > > e. USG IANA Stewardship Transition - Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding > >Whereas, the Board has approved expense budget >envelopes to support the IANA Stewardship >Transition Project ("Project") during FY15 and >FY16, and all approved budget envelopes will >have been used after the ICANN Meeting 55 in Marrakech. > >Whereas, a Project Cost Support Team was >implemented to produce Project expense estimates >for the remainder of FY16 and for FY17 for the Project. > >Whereas, Project Cost Support Team produced >expense estimates for the Project expenses of up >to approximately US$5.4 million to be incurred through the remainder of FY16. > >Whereas, the Board Finance Committee met on 3 >March 2016 and has approved to recommend to the >Board to approve an additional Project expense >budget envelope of up US$5.4 million to cover >Project expenses through the remainder of FY16. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.12), the Board approves a >budget envelope of up to US$5.4 million to cover >the costs of the Project to be incurred through >the remainder of FY16 to be funded through a >fund release from the Reserve Fund. > > >f. AOB > >i. Enhancing Openness and Transparency - Board Deliberations > >Whereas, the Board believes that providing >increased access to Board deliberations is >important, and that increased openness is an >important means of working toward that goal. > >Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its >Amsterdam workshop how to improve its >functioning and agreed that enhancing the >visibility into the Board deliberations and >decision-making processes was an important part >of becoming more accountable and more transparent. > >Whereas, the Board noted the call from the >community for increased openness and transparency. > >Whereas, the Board believes that a positive >first step towards increased openness is >publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings >of its deliberative sessions to the extent that >such information or dialogue is not subject to >confidentiality restrictions or privilege. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the >President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work >with the Board to develop a proposed plan for >the publication of transcripts and/or recordings >of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan >to include an assessment of possible resources >costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: >(i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; and >(ii) for redaction of portions of the transcript >that should be maintained as confidential or privileged. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to >evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if >satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed >processes relating to publication of transcripts >and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative >sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki. > > > > > >3. Executive Session - CONFIDENTIAL > >The Board held a confidential portion of the >session relating to employment matters. > > > >Sent from my iPhone > >David A. Olive >Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support >General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters Istanbul >Hakki Yeten Cad. Sellenium Plaza No:10/C >K:<tel:10%2034349>10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Direct Line: <tel:+90.212.999.6212>+90.212.999.6212 >Mobile: <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611>+ 1. 202.341.3611 >Mobile: <tel:+90.533.341.6550>+90.533.341.6550 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:DmUUEZaEsVINzqlRX2uwEAmu20MGxQYFjxxanLDonzSXZFXjj2r8XkpRsrxebPYafO/iEqJjC8aL+6wJ65pkt2DgoWeaLbCeL+d9b08kMzL2I/jqosy0J+Z6zhtLyomV0gg9/HxOHwKEH3K8yhba4ArADpr+vOtbrBLY2OCSSxy7+6qRIHQjrcEA7bPwBAm/ > >_______________________________________________ >soac-infoalert mailing list >soac-infoalert(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

2 1

Fwd: Board resolution on Enhancing Openne ss and Transparency Board Deliberations
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

This is outstanding news! Access to Board deliberations has been something that I and others have asked for over many years. If it had been done a while ago, the level of trust in the ICANN Board would have been much higher and would have eased the CCWG-ACCT difficulty. Congratulations to the ICANN Board and those on the Board who have been pushing for this. Alan >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:25:26 +0000 >Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board resolution on >Enhancing Openness and Transparency Board Deliberations > >Hello All, > >See below. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > >From: >https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en > > >i. Enhancing Openness and Transparency Board Deliberations > >Whereas, the Board believes that providing >increased access to Board deliberations is >important, and that increased openness is an >important means of working toward that goal. > >Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its >Amsterdam workshop how to improve its >functioning and agreed that enhancing the >visibility into the Board deliberations and >decision-making processes was an important part >of becoming more accountable and more transparent. > >Whereas, the Board noted the call from the >community for increased openness and transparency. > >Whereas, the Board believes that a positive >first step towards increased openness is >publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings >of its deliberative sessions to the extent that >such information or dialogue is not subject to >confidentiality restrictions or privilege. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the >President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work >with the Board to develop a proposed plan for >the publication of transcripts and/or recordings >of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan >to include an assessment of possible resources >costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: > > (i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; > > and > > (ii) for redaction of portions of the > transcript that should be maintained as confidential or privileged. > >Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to >evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if >satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed >processes relating to publication of transcripts >and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative >sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki. >

1 0

Board Resolutions from Board Meeting on 15 May 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 18, 2016

May 18, 2016

Hello, ALAC and Regional Leaders, Below is the set of resolutions from the ICANN Board Meeting on 15 May 2016. Possibly of interest to you: - Conduct at ICANN Meetings - FY17 SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Approval - October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting - Enhancing Openness and Transparency - Board Deliberations (this last one is special, please do read it - I pasted it below). Best regards, Rinalia Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 15 May 2016 1. *Consent Agenda: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1>* 1. *Approval of Board Meeting Minutes <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.a>* 2. *Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Appointment <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.b>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.02 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.…>* 3. *GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016) <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.c>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.03 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.…>* 4. *Conduct at ICANN Meetings <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.d>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.15.04 – 2016.05.15.05 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.…>* 5. *Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#1.e>* 2. *Main Agenda: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2>* 1. *Consideration of GNSO Policy Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.a>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.15.07 – 2016.05.15.08 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.…>* 2. *Report re: .HOTEL <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.b>* 3. *SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.c>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.09 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.…>* 4. *October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.d>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.15.10 – 2016.05.15.11 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.…>* 5. *USG IANA Stewardship Transition – Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.e>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.12 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.…>* 6. *AOB <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.f>* 1. *Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.…>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.13 – 2016.05.15.14 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.…>* 3. *Executive Session – CONFIDENTIAL <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#3>* 1. AOB 1. Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations Whereas, the Board believes that providing increased access to Board deliberations is important, and that increased openness is an important means of working toward that goal. Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its Amsterdam workshop how to improve its functioning and agreed that enhancing the visibility into the Board deliberations and decision-making processes was an important part of becoming more accountable and more transparent. Whereas, the Board noted the call from the community for increased openness and transparency. Whereas, the Board believes that a positive first step towards increased openness is publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings of its deliberative sessions to the extent that such information or dialogue is not subject to confidentiality restrictions or privilege. Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Board to develop a proposed plan for the publication of transcripts and/or recordings of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan to include an assessment of possible resources costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: (i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; and (ii) for redaction of portions of the transcript that should be maintained as confidential or privileged. Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed processes relating to publication of transcripts and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki. *Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.13 – 2016.05.15.14* In support of the continued call for visibility into Board deliberations and processes, the Board has determined to make available transcripts or recordings, where appropriate, of the Board's deliberative sessions. This effort to enhance openness is likely to also support the ICANN community in enhancing ICANN's accountability, as it will reduce questions of how and why the Board reaches its decisions. This decision also directly supports ICANN's previous efforts and the continued goal of operating as openly and transparently in its decision-making. ICANN is also acting consistently with the ICANN's Bylaws, as set out in Article III, section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws, that, "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness." (ICANN Bylaws at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en - III <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#III> .) There will be issues before the Board for which confidentiality is still required, and that may require redaction of parts or withholding of full transcripts, and it is important that the community and the Board understand how those decisions will be taken. To that end, the Board is directing the development of a plan, which would include proposed processes by which those redaction decisions for confidentiality and privilege are to be made. That plan should be developed as soon as practicable, and should be ready for Board consideration during ICANN56 in Helsinki. This decision will not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. Implementation of this decision may involve increased costs, including, risk and fiscal impact for ICANN. This is an organizational administrative function for which public comment is not required, but such input may be useful at a later point depending upon the plan.

1 0

Fwd: [atlarge-review-wp] Independent Examiner for At-Large Review Announced
by Holly Raiche May 17, 2016

May 17, 2016

Folks Now that the Independent Examiner has been announced, you should know as well. And as Cheryl and I said on our Regional Leadership call, we are very pleased with this choice - it will be an effective team. Our ALAC Review team will be meeting with this group next week to start the review process. I look forward to working with them - and you - to make this a constructive, effective review Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> > Subject: [atlarge-review-wp] Independent Examiner for At-Large Review Announced > Date: 14 May 2016 3:45:29 am AEST > To: "atlarge-review-wp(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <atlarge-review-wp(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: Tom Mackenzie <tmackenzie(a)items.fr>, Delgado Rosa Maria <rosa(a)delgado.aero>, Nick Thorne <nick.thorne(a)domzac.org>, Tim McGinnis <mctimconsulting(a)gmail.com> > > Dear At-Large Review Working Party, > > We are very pleased to announce that ICANN has appointed ITEMS international to conduct the At-Large Review as the Independent Examiner. You can find the official announcement here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-05-13-en. > > I think I speak for everyone when I say that we are very happy about this decision and are looking forward to a constructive collaboration between ITEMS, the Working Party, and the wider At-Large community to assure a successful review process. > > The next step will be a kick-off meeting between ITEMS, the Working Party, and support staff to allow ITEMS to present its team and be introduced to the Working Party. In addition, this meeting might be useful to set out the path ahead and address any questions or concerns the Working Party may have. The meeting will take place in the week of 23 May and a doodle poll will be sent out shortly to assure we find a time that works for all. > > If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at any time. > Many thanks and very best wishes, > > Larisa, Charla, and Lars > Multi-stakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > atlarge-review-wp mailing list > atlarge-review-wp(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atlarge-review-wp

2 1

Inactive WG Report
by Alan Greenberg May 16, 2016

May 16, 2016

Before I start, note that I could not see any reason for this thread being on the ALAC-Internal list and have moved my reply to the public list. A few comments: 1. As I previously noted, I really cannot get that excited about whether we temporarily shelve an inactive WG or shut it down. I have a slight preference for the latter, but there is really no difference. Regardless of the name of the process, we will preserve the work spaces, history and mailing lists. 2. For ongoing WGs, I believe that we need a clearly stated mission. I suspect a "charter" may be overkill (but see my next point). I would not want to set too high a barrier to starting a WG. And for some WGs, it is not clear that we want to specify outcomes ahead of time. 3. On membership, we have always been VERY open. For WG/SC with specific tasks assigned by the ALAC (such as Finance & Budget, Outreach & Engagement or the CROPP_RT, it makes sense to limit "membership" and voting rights and have required regional representation and balance. For other WGs, is there a real need to have all that? Alan At 15/05/2016 08:58 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >It is easy to just close WGs and just start up new ones when required, but >where does it leave the original intent of the first WG? You also lose a >lot of the history which reviving enables you to continue with - assuming >you can access this history on the community wiki. > >Our new At-Large website lists all WGs and links to their workspaces. But >some of these workspace pages are embarrassingly out of date, the page is >filled with a list of WG members who never turn/ed up and monthly report >spaces are empty. > >I am suggesting a reorganisation of these workspaces and a review of some >of our current WG practices to include the following: > >1. In keeping with Tijani's suggestion, the establishment of WGs should >follow a simple At-Large WG Charter with its mission, specific rules, >members and outcomes clearly stated, and with initially prescribed >time-framed outputs - so everyone knows what they are there for and some >indication of who long this commitment is required for. Some WGs already >have Charters, others don't. Outputs can change over time too, depending on >the type of WG. > >2. A monthly report on the workspace could simply be a table listing the >meeting date and a brief summary of the decisions made. Meeting notes can >be linked here Any interested new participants can therefore view the WGs >history in relation to its purpose, and also understand what stage of the >WGs life-cycle they are entering into. > >3. WGs should consist of Members (1 or 2 from each region - one is Chair) >who must be active or be replaced. It was raised as an ALAC metric that >ALAC members should be actively reporting to their RALOs about the WGs they >are in and encouraging participation. > >4. Other Non-Member Participants in WG meetings should be acknowledged in >the meeting notes and their ALS or other affiliation recorded (for WG >metrics). > >5. Once all the outputs related to the original purpose of the WG have been >achieved, a final report of its achievements should be submitted and the WG >can then be closed legitimately. > >6. If another similar WG is to be formed, then the final report of the >former WG's activities could be linked to the new workspace, to give some >acknowledgement of the work that has already been done in that area. > > >Perhaps we need a WG on At-Large WGs and Workspaces, etc :-) > >Maureen > > >On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Vanda >Scartezini ><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>vanda >at scartezini.org> >wrote: > > > Liked the approach. Just end the group and when needed create another > > group with the same name -, specially because probably persons will not > > be the same. > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > Av. Paulista 1159 # 1004 > > 01311-200 Sao Paulo/SP Brazil > > Phone: + 55 11 3266-6253 > > Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464 > > > > On 5/14/16, 6:50 PM, > "<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>alac-internal-bounces > at atlarge-lists.icann.org on > > behalf of Alan Greenberg" > <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>alac-internal-bounces > at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > on behalf of > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>alan.greenberg > at mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > >I find the discussion about whether a WG should > > >be "archived" so it can be revived or shut down > > >is rather academic. Typically those in the former > > >category have no formal mission or charter, no > > >chair and no active members. So all we are going > > >to revive at some unspecified time in the future > > >is the name. And we have no rule saying we cannot > > >re-use a name. Both paths lead to the same end. > > > > > >Being somewhat pedantic, I will note that in > > >another part of my life, I interact a lot with > > >Archives. Things that are archived are by > > >definition records from the past that are not > > >going to be changed or reactivated. So > > >technically we do want to archive records of > > >closed WGs to preserve the history, but that > > >might not be the best name for a WG that we really think will live once > > more. > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >At 14/05/2016 01:28 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: > > >>I think the important point is that "archived" means it can be revived > > when > > >>the circumstances are right. Most of our "on-hold" WGs are in the same > > >>situation except that they already have an identified chair and active > > >>members who can resume once we get back to some sort of "normality" (if > > >>there is such a thing in ICANN ?) > > >> > > >>M > > >>On 14/05/2016 3:36 am, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Yeah I discuss my interest to get involved sometime ago with Olivier > > >> > (though not necessarily as chair) but could still stick my head out > > to wear > > >> > the hat if it comes to that. For now what I am saying is that we could > > >> > leave it packed but not deleted based on post transition activities > > of CSC > > >> > (don't know how heavy it will be) > > >> > > > >> > Regards > > >> > > > >> > Sent from my LG G4 > > >> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > >> > On 14 May 2016 10:43, "Maureen Hilyard" > > >> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Yay Seun! Does that mean you would be interested in Chairing the > > Technical > > >> > Issues WG? I am sure that those who have been interested enough to > > stick > > >> > with the team would love to get their show back on the road. You can > > get > > >> > more info from Olivier. > > >> > > > >> > Pity about the joint NCSG-ALAC group not getting off the ground. > > Perhaps > > >> > with different (NCSG) personnel things may have progressed normally. > > >> > > > >> > M > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at > > gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks Maureen, I also initially thought that both groups were > > going to > > >> > > have similar views as well as it concerns the transition but after > > >> > > participating on the NCSG discussions (during the early times) it > > became > > >> > > obvious that interest differ significantly. It's definitely a +1 > > from me > > >> > as > > >> > > well. However if the NCSG makes a move in future, we can be sure to > > >> > > reconsider and a new WG can always be setup as may be required. > > >> > > > > >> > > That said, I am quite interested in the "Technical Issues WG" I > > think we > > >> > > may not want to kill it yet, considering that we may have a CSC > > liaison > > >> > > post-transition, it could then be the home to discuss those issues > > >> > related > > >> > > to names IANA operations. > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards > > >> > > > > >> > > Sent from my LG G4 > > >> > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > >> > > On 13 May 2016 2:33 a.m., "Maureen Hilyard" > > >> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Leon > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Actually that was the only one that volunteered closure. The > > >> > explanation > > >> > > > in more detail was... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The WG which you have referred to below was born dead. When CWG > > IANA & > > >> > > CCWG > > >> > > > Accountability were started, there were hopes that the ALAC and > > NCSG > > >> > > would > > >> > > > have similar view on the public interest. Unfortunately NCSG's > > choice > > >> > of > > >> > > > representatives like Milton Mueller and Robin Gross, meant that > > any > > >> > > > dialogue was completely impossible from the outset. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I'd suggest we close this one as it has not only done nothing > > but will > > >> > > > likely never be able to do anything. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Maureen > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:59 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < > > >> > > > leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Dear Maureen, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for this very useful document. I support your > > suggestions. The > > >> > > > only > > >> > > > > one I have doubt about is the joint At-Large-NCSG WG. Should we > > try > > >> > to > > >> > > > give > > >> > > > > it a last chance before burying it? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > León > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > El 12/05/2016, a las 2:34 p.m., Maureen Hilyard < > > >> > > > > maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> escribió: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Alan > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A request was made at our last ALT meeting to look into 10 WGs > > >> > which > > >> > > > had > > >> > > > > > been inactive for some time. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > In my report, a very brief statement and a recommendation has > > been > > >> > > made > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > > each, but the overall recommendation is that 6 should be > > reinstated > > >> > > as > > >> > > > > > ACTIVE or ON-HOLD for the reasons given; 2 are to be closed; > > and 2 > > >> > > are > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > be archived and revived if required in the future. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The 2 WGs recommended for closure are: > > >> > > > > > (1) the joint At-Large-NCSG WG which never really got > > started and > > >> > > > > > (2) the Study group re: use of names for countries and > > territories) > > >> > > > > having > > >> > > > > > completed its objective and a CCWG being subsequently formed > > in > > >> > which > > >> > > > > > At-Large is represented. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The 2 WGs recommended for archiving and if required in the > > future > > >> > can > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > resurrected to deal with related matters. Neither have > > identified > > >> > > > Chairs > > >> > > > > or > > >> > > > > > active members, but were considered to be important enough > > that > > >> > they > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > > > able to be revived if needed. These are the Technical Issues > > WG and > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > At-Large new gTLDs WG > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > My report is attached. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Maureen > > >> > > > > > <INACTIVE-PASSIVE WGs > > >> > > > > Report.docx>_______________________________________________ > > >> > > > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > >> > > > > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > > > > > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ALAC Wiki: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > At-Large Website: > <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > >> > > > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > ALAC Wiki: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > At-Large Website: > <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > >> > > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ALAC Wiki: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > > > >> > > > At-Large Website: > <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > >> > > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > >> > > > > >> > > ALAC Wiki: > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > > >> > > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > >> > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > >> > > > >> > ALAC Wiki: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > >> > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > >> > ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > >> > > > >> > ALAC Wiki: > > >> > > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > >> > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >ALAC-Internal mailing list > > ><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/list > info/alac-internal>ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > > > >ALAC Wiki: > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > >At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal>ALAC-Internal > at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > > ALAC Wiki: > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > At-Large Website: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > >

3 2

Fwd: ICANN56 - Schedule DRAFTv3.3
by Alan Greenberg May 16, 2016

May 16, 2016

Note that the ALAC sessions are preliminary (and have likely already changed since Tanzanika's version). Given what we now know about the rest of the schedule, they will now be adjusted. Alan >From: "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> >Subject: ICANN56 - Schedule DRAFTv3.3 >Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 23:20:58 +0000 > >Hi All, > >The latest schedule is attached and updated on >the ><https://community.icann.org/display/ccmeetschedplan/Meeting+Schedule+Planni…>community >wiki page. > >Block Schedule > >In an effort to increase the time you have >available to meet, I made a few changes to the >block schedule format (some of which you may >have already noticed in the last version that went out) : > >- The afternoon coffee break has been reduced to 15 min >- Day now ends at 1830 instead of 1800 and all afternoon time slots are 90 min >- Lunch is scheduled from 1200-1330 daily, >however a minimum of just 60 min is required, >therefore you have the option to schedule >morning sessions through 12:30 if needed. > >Slight changes to some of your session times >have also been made to match the available time >blocks and breaks, but given the above option, >you may want to make further adjustments to take >advantage of the additional time offered. > >Proposed Layout for CC Topic Sessions > >I believe the consensus for the cross-community >discussions in the afternoons is for these to be >topic based sessions for any SO/AC - type [2] as >described in Patriks email. One SO/AC is the >host/leader for each session, and these have >been identified on the latest draft of the >schedule. Staff is reaching out to session >leaders to collect description/agenda details >for each topic and we will share those on this >thread as soon as they become available. > >To Donnas question below about CCWG and ICANN >Accountability Ive noted ASO as a potential >leader for this topic, but interest came from >ASO, ALAC, and ccNSO. Please share any thoughts >you might have on the intent for this topic, and >ultimately, who will host the discussion. > >Evening Activities > >We started to receive a number of requests for >cocktails in the evenings. In the spirit of >cross community interaction and networking >opportunities, weve decided the best approach >is to have a reception for all delegates every evening. > >Monday: 1830-2000 Local Host Reception (Location: City Hall) >Tuesday: 1830-1930 Presidents Reception >Wednesday: 1830-1930 Chairmans Reception >Thursday: 1830-1930 Wrap-Up Reception > >Next Steps > >An invitation will go out to SO/AC support staff >tomorrow so they can submit your final sessions >into our Event Management Scheduling Software >(EMS). All submissions will be due over the next >two weeks and a final schedule will be posted no later than 6 June. > >Please let me know if you have any questions - Thanks! > >Tanzanica > > >---------- >Tanzanica S. King >Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design >ICANN > >Office +1 310 301 5800 >Mobile +1 310 995 3038 >Email <mailto:king@icann.org>king(a)icann.org >www.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Consumer Safeguards Director
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2016

May 14, 2016

We made a fuss over being allowed to contribute to this. SO far, no input received (by me - perhaps some went directly to Allen). ALan At 04/05/2016 02:42 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Allen Grogan has informed me that the Consumer Safeguards Director >position is now posted - >https://icann-openhire.silkroad.com/epostings/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.jobI…. > >He would welcome any input on it and is willing to amend the posting >based on such input. > >notwithstanding how long we have waited for this, I would suggest a >quick reply if you have any suggestions. > >Alan

3 2

Request for Input - Next-Generation RDS to replace WHOIS PDP
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

Dear All, GNSO Next-Generation Registration Directory Services to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG) sent a request for input to ICANN's Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Part of the Working Group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered through an input template. Please view the template here and note the four specific questions: https://community.icann.org/x/wQmOAw. The deadline for input submission is 16 June, and the GNSO Secretariat team<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> will forward input to the PDP WG. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC provides input to PDP WGs and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a input on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting a response to this PDP WG on behalf of the ALAC, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. 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

Board Meeting Agenda - 15 May 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

Hello, ALAC. The Board is meeting on 15 May 2016. Agenda below. We also have workshops preceding the meeting, which will focus mostly on the transition (progress and impact on ICANN), bylaws, targets for the CEO, FY17 budget and CCWG Framework. Board Committees will also meet. Best regards, Rinalia https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-05-15-en Agenda | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 15 May 2016 Consent Agenda - Approval of Board Meeting Minutes from March 3, 9 and 10 2016 - Security & Stability Advisory Committee(SSAC) Appointment - GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016) - Conduct at ICANN Meetings Main Agenda - Consideration of GNSO Policy Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services - Report re: .HOTEL - SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval - October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting - USG IANA Stewardship Transition – Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding - AOB Confidential Session

1 0