June 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

Dear Alan, members of the ALAC and At-Large community, Congratulations! A significant milestone and achievement. Best regards, Rinalia > Link: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-op-budget-fy17-… > > “Response > Value in Face-to-Face Meetings > ICANN recognizes the fundamental importance of the representation of users > in ICANN’s multistakeholder model, and of the participation of such > representatives in its activities. ICANN also recognizes that the existing > structures of the At-Large organization depend for their effectiveness on > face-to-face meetings, and that the past experience of the value resulting > from such face-to-face meetings has received broad consensus from the > community. > ICANN Agrees with the At-Large Request > ICANN welcomes the request from At-Large for a multiyear schedule of > General Assemblies and Summits. It is consistent with the organization’s > efforts to plan more and better in both short and long terms. > It allows the existing meetings and costs to be put in the longer term > perspective of a five-year cycle. This will improve the predictability of > activities and costs for the ICANN organization and allow better planning > and increased efficiency in the organization of such meetings. It also > makes explicit the commitment of the At-Large organization to the suggested > structure of meetings included in the proposal. > > The Way Forward > ICANN plans to integrate the At-Large multiyear schedule of General > Assemblies and Summits, and similar requests from other parts of the > community, into ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan. This means At-Large will > not have to make new requests every year for the inclusion in the Fiscal > Year Operating Plan and Budget. > > Future Considerations > The Fiscal Year Operating Plan and Budget are subject to community and > Board approval each year. Because of the longer term planning arising from > this process, both the ICANN and At-Large organizations will need to be > flexible and adjust the scheduling of General Assemblies and Summit > meetings to take account of circumstances as they arise. “ > We also recommended that At-Large provides periodic updates of the > five-year cycle of meetings. These should happen at least once a year and > at least two months before the scheduled date of publication of the draft > annual operating plan and budget for public comment. > Changes to be made in final FY17 planning documents > Integrate the proposed multiyear planning proposal into the FY17 Operating > Plan and Budget > > > >

1 0

ALAC Candidate Selection Committee
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

Several months ago, we talked about forming (or perhaps reforming since there was one when Olivier was Chair) a candidate selection committee to make recommendations to the ALAC on the appointment of people to various positions. There are generally two kinds of positions that we consider: 1. Positions appointed to (or recommended for appointment to, when the ALAC does not have the final say) various groups within ICANN. Examples include Cross-Community Working Groups (under the current rules used for the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability, and in the Draft CCWG Framework under consideration), Affirmation of Commitments Reviews (a name that probably will change under the pending Bylaw changes) and the CSC overseeing the new IANA. In these cases, the appointee has a responsibility to work with the ALAC and At-Large, but does not normally formally represent them (thus we have found that the appointed members of the CCWG-Accountability have at times had different positions on some issues). 2. Positions where the person is a Liaison to other bodies, generally within ICANN, and formally represents the ALAC in those groups. Moreover, in some cases, there are specific requirements that must be met. In the past, we have not used a selection committee for this second type of appointment, but the importance of them is such that I think that we should have formal discussions on the candidates before an ALAC vote. Moreover, our Rules of Procedure allow the ALAC to re-appoint Liaisons without opening nominations, a practice that some people have felt is not appropriate. A selection committee would be an ideal place to hold the discussion on whether to do so in any given case. The issue has been discussed within the ALT, and the general feeling is that in the case of the first class of appointments, there should be a committee similar to that used when Olivier was Chair. Specifically, a group composed of ten people, led by the ALAC Chair, with five of its members selected by RALOs (according to their own rules ands standards) and five selected by the ALAC, one per region in each case. Such an ALAC committee is in accordance with RoP Section 18.3. Most (or perhaps all) ALT members feel that using the ALT itself as the ALAC Members on the selection committee makes sense (perhaps augmented by one additional person from the Chair's region). The ALT is selected annually to represent the interests of the regions on the leadership team, already works well together and is geared up for quick responses. But that is open for discussion. For appointments of Liaisons and any other positions that formally represent the ALAC, there is a strong (but not unanimous) belief in the ALT that such recommendations must be made by ALAC members. Ultimately, people recommended by this group must represent the ALAC and it is ALAC members that must pass judgement. Again, I think the ALT is an easy choice for but other alternatives are possible. I would have no problem with the RALO appointees also participating in the discussions, since they would already understand the confidentiality issues related to personnel selection. Note that in all cases, the selection committee has the option of providing one or more candidates for the consideration of the ALAC, but with the assurance that all candidates presented to the ALAC meet at the very least the minimum requirements. I would appreciate comments so we can refine this quickly and approve it in Helsinki. ALT Members who have varying opinions are of course welcome to clearly state their positions. Alan

3 5

Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 13, 2016

June 13, 2016

Dear ALAC, In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the outlook for the next round of the new gTLD Program. To support our discussions, we would like to be informed by stakeholder views. I have been requested to obtain the view of the ALAC. Would it be possible for the ALAC to provide a snapshot of its views on this topic in one slide? Please note that this information and presentation format would be applied to each stakeholder group's views. Some questions to guide you: 1. Initiation of next round - do you think a date should be identified so that ICANN has a target to work towards? 2. Requirements for round initiation - what do you think should be in place before the next round is initiated? 3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD program should be improved for next round? 4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC? For the Board to have a chance to review the slide before its discussion, it would be good to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest. I do understand that this is short notice. If you do not have sufficient time to develop a formal position, informal input would be sufficient at this time and it would be appreciated. The Board is likely to revisit the topic again during its workshop in September. There is thus another chance to provide a more extensive view, but for now the Board would just like to have a sense from the community on the topic to guide its early deliberations. Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice. Best regards, Rinalia on behalf of the ICANN Board

8 14

AFNIC Board - Sébastien Bachollet
by Sébastien Bachollet June 11, 2016

June 11, 2016

AFNIC, the Registry for .fr and .re and the back-end registry for 14 new gTLDs met in Paris France Friday 10 of June 2016, and it is a pleasure to report that Sébastien Bachollet was elected to the AFNIC Board for a term of four years starting immediately, representing end-users. Benjamin Louis was elected to the AFNIC Board for a term of two years starting immediately, representing end-users. For the AFNIC Board, registrars elected Eric Lantonnet (Namebay) for 4 years and Tristan Colombet (4X) for 2 years. All the best Skills are useful but diversity is essential. Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

23 22

AFRINIC Board - Seun Ojedeji
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2016

June 11, 2016

AFRINIC, the African Regional Internet Registry (RIR) met in Gaborone, Botswana this week, and it is a pleasure to report that Seun Ojedeji was elected to the AFRINIC Board for a term of three years from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019. Alan

20 19

Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2016

June 11, 2016

My personal preference is option 1 for the following reasons: - I prefer verifiable processes and thus eliminate option 4. - I prefer to give the electorate a second chance before resorting to a random selection and so eliminate option 3. - I believe that voters should always be encouraged to vote for the candidate they actually would like to win (in the eventuality that their best preference does not win) and thus I eliminate option 2. I am sure there are other opinions, and I look forward to hearing the reasoning behind them. Alan At 10/06/2016 05:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there >are several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of >the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach >unanimity on which option to pick (largely because of the deadline >required to sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the >revisions in Helsinki). > >The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to >two. In the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have >fewer votes (or first preference votes) and will be dropped, >resulting in two candidates being left. The difficulty arises if the >two candidates tie for last place, but with the leading candidate >not receiving an absolute majority of votes needed to be declared >the final winner. > >Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that >some positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If >the second vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it >is not the same pair as the first time), one of those tied is >eliminated based on a verifiable random selection. The down side of >this method is that no one may alter their vote and we would have to >use a random selection. > >Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If >the results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection >would be used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option >is something called "strategic voting". Those electors who >originally voted for the leading candidate (the one not in this >runoff) may not vote for the person they prefer, but could vote for >the one they perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate. > >Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates >will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection. > >Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first >round (to narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system >will always eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a >random selection, it would be internal to the voting system and >would not be verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to have used >a truly random selection. > >Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it >would be good to begin the discussion now and not wait for Helsinki. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

3 2

NTIA found IANA proposal meets the criteria
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 9, 2016

June 9, 2016

FYI - At last! :) Rinalia « The U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) finds that the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal developed by the global Internet multistakeholder community meets the criteria NTIA set in March 2014. » https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/fact-sheet-ntias-assessment…

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg June 7, 2016

June 7, 2016

Please find attached a revised version with a small wording change to 19.11.3 that should have been in the version I sent out yesterday. Also for your convenience is a version in PDF format. A wiki page will be set up shortly for comments and questions. Alan At 06/06/2016 03:34 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As discussed on the ALAC call of 26 April 2016, based on the >experience of the 2014 At-Large Board Member Selection, a number of >amendments to the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP) are required. In >addition, a number of other minor changes to align the rules with >our current practices are desirable. The hope is that we can amend >the RoP during the ICANN 56 meeting in Helsinki. According to the >RoP section 13.1.1, a motion to amend the rules must be made 21 days >in advance. > >I hereby make the following motion and ask that another ALAC Member second it. > >Whereas the At-Large Advisory Committee is currently operating under >Rules of Procedure (RoP) approved on 03 April 2013 and which went >into effect on 02 October 2013; > >Whereas a number of changes to these (RoP) have been recommended; > >Therefore; > >The ALAC Adopts the attached Modifications to the Rules of Procedure. > >----------------------------- >Also attached is a detailed log describing each change and the >rationale for it. > >The final RoP adopted by the ALAC may be amended as agreed to by the >ALAC prior to final adoption (as per 13.1.3). Final adoption will >require a super-majority (2/3) vote of the ALAC. > >The most important part of these changes related to the selection of >the At-Large Director. The other changes (prior to Section 19) all >effectively adjust the rules to practices that have been the >practice of the ALAC. If there is any serious objection to these >changes that cannot be readily adjusted, they will be withdrawn to >not delay the changes to Section 19. > >The changes have all been reviewed by the RoP modification group >consisting of Alan Greenberg, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Maureen Hilyard, >Cheryl Langdon Orr and Vanda Scartezini. (Some of that group have >not formally approved this last edit and if there are any issues, >they will raise them at the level of the ALAC.) > >During its deliberations, the group reach unanimous agreement on all >but one section. For that section, 19.11.4, a number of alternatives >are proposed. I will follow up with another e-mail in a few days >detailing the options and giving the pros and cons of each. The ALAC >will then have to reach consensus (or vote) on which option to use. > >Alan

2 1

Motion to amend Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2016

June 6, 2016

As discussed on the ALAC call of 26 April 2016, based on the experience of the 2014 At-Large Board Member Selection, a number of amendments to the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP) are required. In addition, a number of other minor changes to align the rules with our current practices are desirable. The hope is that we can amend the RoP during the ICANN 56 meeting in Helsinki. According to the RoP section 13.1.1, a motion to amend the rules must be made 21 days in advance. I hereby make the following motion and ask that another ALAC Member second it. Whereas the At-Large Advisory Committee is currently operating under Rules of Procedure (RoP) approved on 03 April 2013 and which went into effect on 02 October 2013; Whereas a number of changes to these (RoP) have been recommended; Therefore; The ALAC Adopts the attached Modifications to the Rules of Procedure. ----------------------------- Also attached is a detailed log describing each change and the rationale for it. The final RoP adopted by the ALAC may be amended as agreed to by the ALAC prior to final adoption (as per 13.1.3). Final adoption will require a super-majority (2/3) vote of the ALAC. The most important part of these changes related to the selection of the At-Large Director. The other changes (prior to Section 19) all effectively adjust the rules to practices that have been the practice of the ALAC. If there is any serious objection to these changes that cannot be readily adjusted, they will be withdrawn to not delay the changes to Section 19. The changes have all been reviewed by the RoP modification group consisting of Alan Greenberg, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Maureen Hilyard, Cheryl Langdon Orr and Vanda Scartezini. (Some of that group have not formally approved this last edit and if there are any issues, they will raise them at the level of the ALAC.) During its deliberations, the group reach unanimous agreement on all but one section. For that section, 19.11.4, a number of alternatives are proposed. I will follow up with another e-mail in a few days detailing the options and giving the pros and cons of each. The ALAC will then have to reach consensus (or vote) on which option to use. Alan

2 1

Fwd: [At-Large] New Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement Follow Updates
by Alan Greenberg June 2, 2016

June 2, 2016

I did a quick read-through of the redline version of the contract and did not notice anything onerous, but it would be a good idea if one or more other people also reviewed it. The redline version is at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-amende…. Alan >From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > ><alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:55:59 +0000 >Subject: [At-Large] New Public Comment: Proposed >Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement Follow Updates >Precedence: list > >Dear All, > >This is to let you know that the Public Comment >on the âProposed Amendments to Base New gTLD >Registry Agreement Follow Updates' has now gone >live: ><https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201…>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201… > >Public comment will end on 13 July 2016 23:59 >UTC. During this period, anyone can submit >comment via comments-proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-31may16(a)icann.org. > >As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC >submits Statements on Public Comment 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 Statement on behalf of the ALAC. > >If you are interested in drafting an ALAC >Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact ><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. >At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. > >Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing >a potential ALAC Statement is here: ><https://community.icann.org/x/uBiOAw>https://community.icann.org/x/uBiOAw. >All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. > >Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, >Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and YeÅim Nazlar > >ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community > >E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >Website: <https://atlarge.icann.org/>atlarge.icann.org > >Facebook: ><https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge > >Twitter: ><https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>@<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:2fueJ/5COLmJTmB643qhEVvlhfbjgKSm2l3ppjdejrfepA9HlOXxznZg/hLmGGLHSuDJAbuGlkYc+6RFtdYc+vMtlVloDkN2To4UXjhk1qxqDPjzZE2Cg6b2A3Rns7x2/70CFRADK+TwHMvoHEGv4pTvZhA+CO/Sk06dx9IzFLHH2ZaNiFfE6Ry3f/L8jQsv > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 3