September 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

Dear All, The ALAC Appointee Selection Committee<https://community.icann.org/x/VwebAw> recommended for a full call for nominations for ALAC Liaisons for the 2016-2017 term. Thus, this is a call for nominations for the following ALAC Liaisons. The current Liaison is shown in brackets. - GNSO (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) - ccNSO (Maureen Hilyard) - SSAC (Julie Hammer) - GAC (Yrjö Länsipuro) -.MOBI (Murray McKercher) The one year terms will start at the close of ICANN 57 and end at the close of ICANN 60. The schedule for this call for Liaisons is: Call issued Friday, 23 September Call closes: Monday, 3 October at 23:59 UTC Acceptances due: Friday, 7 October at 23:59 UTC ALAC Appointee Selection Committee Teleconference: week of 10 October ALAC Vote (if multiple candidates from Selection Committee): As soon as practical after Selection Committee announces recommendations Please review the General Liaison requirements and responsibilities located in the revised RoP<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09> Section 7. Of particular importance, please note the following: - (As per RoP 7.3) Liaisons to AC/SOs need not be ALAC Members, but they will normally be current or past ALAC Members, or otherwise familiar with the ALAC and At-Large and the TG to whom they will liaise. - (As per RoP 7.8) When representing the ALAC, Appointees have an obligation to solicit ALAC and At-Large views on the matter where practical and possible. Appointees should be selected knowing that in many instances such consultation may not be possible or practical and thus the ALAC needs to select people who understand the philosophies or guiding values and principles of the ALAC and At-Large. - Liaisons should be selected based on their familiarity with the group to which they are appointed. Having worked extensively with them before in some capacity (such as on multiple WGs) is a strong asset. - A level of trust between a Liaison and the group to which they are appointed is mandatory for success and must already exist or it should be demonstrable how or why it may exist in the future. - Liaisons to AC/SOs require a MAJOR time commitment over and above other At-Large responsibilities. - For the SSAC Liaison position, the ALAC only makes a recommendation. The Liaison is a full SSAC Member and must satisfy SSAC criteria and follow SSAC processes for admission to the AC. - For the GAC Liaison position, the potential candidate must be approved by GAC Leadership. - For .MOBI, the prime issue not as much mutual respect and trust, but ensuring that the Liaison understands the business of .MOBI and is well versed in mobile technologies. Liaison reports may be seen here<https://community.icann.org/x/-pQi>. Liaisons are asked to provide monthly reports which summarize activities in the organization to which they are the Liaison. Process for Nomination and Selection: Nominations should be sent to the ALAC list<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> the cc’ing Alan Greenberg<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> and At-Large staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> by Friday, 03 October at 23:59 UTC. For nominations made by people without access to the ALAC list, Staff will post to the ALAC list. All Nominees, in their acceptance or self-nomination, must provide an Expression of Interest including sufficient information about their background and experience to allow the ALAC Appointment Selection Committee to review the nominations and decide on whether to forward their candidacy to the ALAC. The Selection Committee may choose to forward one or more candidates to the ALAC for each position. The Selection Committee or its Chair may choose to ask follow-up questions, but it is not obliged to, so submissions should be as complete as possible. 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>

8 8

Consensus Call: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 1, 2016

Oct. 1, 2016

Given no opposition raised by any ALAC Members, the ALT has unanimously supported this process and specifics on behalf of the ALAC and I have so informed ICANN. Through this e-mail, I am requesting a Consensus Call of the ALAC ratifying the ALT decision. With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC ratifying the ALT decision as per Paragraph 6.2 of our Rules of Procedure. The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 on Thursday, 06 October 2016. If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either this list or to me directly. Although message indicating support are welcome, they are not necessary. Should this Consensus Call fail due to significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1), we will revert to a formal vote. Alan At 29/09/2016 02:03 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The following has just been brought to my attention. > >As described in the message forwarded below, the >ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the >CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support >the proposal regarding the handling of the >IANA-related intellectual property and domain >names. They will be transferred to the IETF >Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing >IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out >through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). > >In summary: >- ICANN will act as the signatory to the >agreements on behalf of the Names Community >- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide >direction to ICANN in this respect. >- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, >the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will >collectively direct ICANN in this respect. >- Initial Names Community CCG representatives >shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who >has overseen the entire IP process. > >There has been extensive discussion within the >CWG on this and I believe that the resultant >plan more than meets ICANN's needs. > >The US Congress has not blocked the transition, >but a number of US States are attempting to do >so through the courts. At this point we are >presuming that the Stewardship will go through >and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. > >Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other >explicit responsibilities and is not empowered >to make substantive decisions on the part of the >ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes >consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the >decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. > >I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC >agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I >will come back to the ALAC for ratification. > >IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE >ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. > >Alan > >>From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to >>the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship >> Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 >> >>Dear Chairs, >> >>Please see below a note from the Jonathan >>Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >>-- >>Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, >> >>As part of the transition implementation work, >>representatives from the names community, the >>numbers community, the protocol parameters >>community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >>drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >>transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF >>Trust and to govern the relationships amongst >>the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. >> >>These agreements are: >> >>- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement >>transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. >> >>- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >>the names, numbers, and protocol parameters >>IANA services.): These agreements allows for >>the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. >> >>- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This >>agreement explains the rights and obligations >>of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. >> >>After a public comment period last month, the >>agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. >> >>One of the decisions that the CWG had to make >>as part of the work was to identify who would >>be the signatory of the Community Agreement on >>behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >>made by the group, with input from CWG external >>counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An >>instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. >> >>The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >>confirms the request of the Cross Community >>Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >>Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >>(CWG) for the benefit of those of its listed >>chartering organizations the Country Code >>Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the >>Security and Stability Advisory Committee >>(SSAC), the Generic Names Supporting >>Organization (GNSO), the At Large Advisory >>Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental >>Advisory Committee (GAC) that have affirmed >>or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree >>to be included herein (each a Consenting >>SO/AC and collectively, the Names Community) >>that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names >>Community under the Community Agreement." >> >>This makes reference to the COs affirming in >>writing that they agree to be included in the >>instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. >> >>As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >>obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >>agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >>kindly ask that you provide such a written >>confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying >>to this email, preferably on or before >>September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of >>the agreement may proceed as planned. >> >>Thank you for your cooperation, >> >>Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.

3 3

Re: [ALAC] IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Or maybe not - https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf. Four states sue to halt transition... Alan At 28/09/2016 11:48 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >According to reports, both the US House of Representatives and >Senate have passed the Continuing Resolution funding the US >government for the period starting October 1 through early December >WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. > >The implication is that the IANA Contract with the NTIA will lapse, >the new ICANN Bylaws will be in effect and the stewardship >transition will be a done-deal. > >Alan

8 10

Transition is a GO!
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

The application for declaratory and injunctive relief has been denied. Barring something else innovative happening (which I would not expect), the IANA contract will lapse in a few hours and the stewardship transition will have its place in history. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Sala, this letter is not about the transition proper. The ALAC has already supported that in numerous ways. This addresses how specific intellectual property is to be handled *IF* the transition goes through. For the record, IANA has nothing to do with privacy with respect to website content OR Whois. With respect to names, it only manages the database saying where each g or cc TLD can be found. Alan At 30/09/2016 03:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Hi Alan, > >My views are that just because they are >demanding various ACs and SOs to provide a statement does not mean we should. > >I would prefer the ACs bide their time and wait >a bit more before issuing commentary. Let >things playout for a bit. The IANA transition is >very political and will get turbulent in days to come as it already has been. > >If the ACs were to release a statement, it >should merely state or reiterate the: > >1)values based positions of the ACs such as high level vision, mission etc; >2)urge stakeholders to consider the necessity of remaining "calm"; >3)regardless of transition or shocks that >coordination group should not deviate from core values. > >The world is facing major shocks and upheaval >with increasing terrorist attacks that will >cause massive shifts in Privacy laws. We already >see Clinton expressing that she will use the >internet to hunt down terrorists etc. >Australia's Attorney General in his recent media >release is revising privacy law that impacts >deanonymity of data etc and there will be impacts on Whois etc. > >If anything, ALAC should bide its time. > >Kind Regards, >Sala T >Former ALAC member > >On 1/10/2016 7:21 am, "Glenn McKnight" ><<mailto:glenn.mcknight@ieee.org>glenn.mcknight(a)ieee.org> wrote: >I as well support the proposal >Glenn McKnight > > > >Glenn McKnight, B.A, M.A >Chair: Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities(FBSC) >IEEE HIC Committee Member >IEEE PES CSI Committee Member >ICANN NARALO Member >Oshawa, Ontario Canada ><mailto:glenn.mcknight@ieee.org>glenn.mcknight(a)ieee.org >SKYPE: gmcknight > > >On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tijani BEN >JEMAA <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: >I too support the proposal regarding the >handling of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 > <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>Le 29 sept. 2016 Ã 21:38, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a Ã©crit : >> >>Thanks for catching that Seun. I had a conflict >>for that meeting of the CWG and could not >>attend, so was not aware of the change. >> >>I have let Trang know and she will update the document. >> >>Alan >> >>At 29/09/2016 02:29 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>>This is fine, just a minor correction; the initial CCG members are: >>> >>>Maarten Simon, Christopher Wilkinson and Greg Shatan, as CCG Names Co-Chair. >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Sent from my LG G4 >>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>>On 29 Sep 2016 7:10 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>>The following has just been brought to my attention. >>>As described in the message forwarded below, >>>the ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the >>>CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support >>>the proposal regarding the handling of the >>>IANA-related intellectual property and domain >>>names. They will be transferred to the IETF >>>Trust with the three IANA communities >>>overseeing IETF Trust. The oversight will be >>>carried out through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). >>> >>>In summary: >>>- ICANN will act as the signatory to the >>>agreements on behalf of the Names Community >>>- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide >>>direction to ICANN in this respect. >>>- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, >>>the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will >>>collectively direct ICANN in this respect. >>>- Initial Names Community CCG representatives >>>shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan >>>who has overseen the entire IP process. >>>There has been extensive discussion within the >>>CWG on this and I believe that the resultant >>>plan more than meets ICANN's needs. >>>The US Congress has not blocked the >>>transition, but a number of US States are >>>attempting to do so through the courts. At >>>this point we are presuming that the >>>Stewardship will go through and accordingly, >>>the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. >>>Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no >>>other explicit responsibilities and is not >>>empowered to make substantive decisions on the >>>part of the ALAC unless urgency or >>>confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. >>>In such a case, the decision needs to be >>>ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. >>>I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC >>>agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, >>>I will come back to the ALAC for ratification. >>>IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE >>>ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. >>>Alan >>> >>>From: Trang Nguyen <<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>trang.nguyen(a)icann.org > >>>Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to >>>the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship >>> Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >>>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 >>>Dear Chairs, >>>Please see below a note from the Jonathan >>>Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >>>-- >>>Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, >>>As part of the transition implementation work, >>>representatives from the names community, the >>>numbers community, the protocol parameters >>>community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >>>drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >>>transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the >>>IETF Trust and to govern the relationships >>>amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. >>>These agreements are: >>>- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This >>>agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. >>>- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >>>the names, numbers, and protocol parameters >>>IANA services.): These agreements allows for >>>the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. >>>- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This >>>agreement explains the rights and obligations >>>of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. >>>After a public comment period last month, the >>>agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. >>>One of the decisions that the CWG had to make >>>as part of the work was to identify who would >>>be the signatory of the Community Agreement on >>>behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >>>made by the group, with input from CWG >>>external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play >>>that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. >>>The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >>>confirms the request of the Cross Community >>>Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >>>Transition Proposal on Naming Related >>>Functions (Ã¢ÅÅCWGÃ¢ ) for the benefit of >>>those of its listed chartering oorganizations >>> the Country Code NNames Supporting >>>Organization (ÃÃ¢ccNSOÃ¢ ), the Security >>>and Stability Advisovisory Committee >>>(Ã¢SSACÃ¢ ), the Generic Namesames >>>Supporting Organization (Ã¢GNSOÃ¢ ), the >>>Ahe At Large Advisory Committee (Ã¢ALACÃ¢ ) >>>and and the Governmental Advisory Committee >>>(Ã¢GACÃ¢ââ¬ ) that have affirmed or >>>hereafter affirm in writinng that theey agree >>>to be included herein (each a Ã¢Consenting >>>SO/ACACÃ¢ and collectively, the Ã¢Names >>>CommunitynityÃ¢ ) that ICANN serve as the >>>signatory for the Names Communityy under the Community Agreement." >>> >>>This makes reference to the COs affirming in >>>writing that they agree to be included in the >>>instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. >>>As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >>>obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >>>agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >>>kindly ask that you provide such a written >>>confirmation as a matter of urgency by >>>replying to this email, preferably on or >>>before September 30th, 2016, so that the >>>signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. >>>Thank you for your cooperation, >>>Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>At-Large Online: >>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Thanks for catching that Seun. I had a conflict for that meeting of the CWG and could not attend, so was not aware of the change. I have let Trang know and she will update the document. Alan At 29/09/2016 02:29 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >This is fine, just a minor correction; the initial CCG members are: > >Maarten Simon, Christopher Wilkinson and Greg Shatan, as CCG Names Co-Chair. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 29 Sep 2016 7:10 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The following has just been brought to my attention. > >As described in the message forwarded below, the >ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the >CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support >the proposal regarding the handling of the >IANA-related intellectual property and domain >names. They will be transferred to the IETF >Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing >IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out >through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). > >In summary: >- ICANN will act as the signatory to the >agreements on behalf of the Names Community >- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide >direction to ICANN in this respect. >- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, >the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will >collectively direct ICANN in this respect. >- Initial Names Community CCG representatives >shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who >has overseen the entire IP process. > >There has been extensive discussion within the >CWG on this and I believe that the resultant >plan more than meets ICANN's needs. > >The US Congress has not blocked the transition, >but a number of US States are attempting to do >so through the courts. At this point we are >presuming that the Stewardship will go through >and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. > >Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other >explicit responsibilities and is not empowered >to make substantive decisions on the part of the >ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes >consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the >decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. > >I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC >agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I >will come back to the ALAC for ratification. > >IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE >ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. > >Alan > >From: Trang Nguyen <<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> >Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship > Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 > >Dear Chairs, > >Please see below a note from the Jonathan >Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >-- >Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, > >As part of the transition implementation work, >representatives from the names community, the >numbers community, the protocol parameters >community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF >Trust and to govern the relationships amongst >the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. > >These agreements are: > >- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement >transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. > >- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA >services.): These agreements allows for the IANA >functions operator to use the IPR. > >- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement >explains the rights and obligations of the IETF >Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. > >After a public comment period last month, the >agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. > >One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as >part of the work was to identify who would be >the signatory of the Community Agreement on >behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >made by the group, with input from CWG external >counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An >instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. > >The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >confirms the request of the Cross Community >Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >(âCWGâ) for the benefit of those of its >listed chartering organizations the Country >Code NNames Supporting Organization >(âccNSOâ), the Security and Stability >Advisory Committee (âSSACâ), the Generic >Names Supporting Organization (âGNSOâ), the >At Large Advisory Committee (âALACâ) and the >Governmental Advisory Committee (âGACâ) >that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in >writinng that they agree to be included herein >(each a âConsenting SO/ACâ and collectively, >the âNames Communityâ) that ICANN serve as >the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." > >This makes reference to the COs affirming in >writing that they agree to be included in the >instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. > >As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >kindly ask that you provide such a written >confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying >to this email, preferably on or before September >30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. > >Thank you for your cooperation, > >Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Please note that we need any concerns raised with utmost haste. Alan At 27/09/2016 12:31 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Somehow this got lost and never went to the ALAC. We will clearly >not meet the deadline, but I have said we would reply as soon as possible. > >A bit of background. As the draft Charter says, the work of the CCWG >will not be to allocate funds, but to develop a process for doing >this. A lot of work has gone into the draft charter, and I believe >that it is close to ready. There are many constraints on what the >funds can be used for based on the ICANN Bylaws, and given the >amount of money (currently $235,000,000 if the .web auction stands) >conflict of interest is a very serious matter. > >Please get any comments to me by the end of Monday at the very latest. > >Of crucial importance are matters of substance which would stop the >ALAC from ratifying the charter. If you find typos and such, please >let me know but that is not the focus. > >Alan > > >>Subject: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG >>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:41:28 +0000 >> >> >>Sending on behalf of Jonathan Robinson, new gTLD Auction Proceeds >>Drafting Team Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair: >> >>Dear SO/AC Chairs, >> >>On behalf of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (DT), we >>are delighted to submit to you and your respective SO/ACs, the >>proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD >>Auction Proceeds. As you may recall, representatives of all ICANN >>SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO (which decided not to take part in the >>DT effort), participated in the DT deliberations (see >><https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw>https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw >>for DT members). >> >>This proposed charter is the result of extensive input and >>deliberations, including careful review of input that was received >>as part of the cross-community session at ICANN 56 in Helsinki (see >><https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)>https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw) >>and we believe it now represents a careful balance between the >>different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT >>Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT >>would like to request you review the proposed charter with this >>careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent >>issues that would prevent your respective SO/AC from adopting this >>charter. We would like to request you highlight such pertinent >>issues by 30 September 2016 at the latest, including an indication >>of when you anticipate your respective SO/AC to be in a position to >>consider the charter for adoption following 30 September, provided >>that no pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs. >> >>Of course, should you have any clarifying questions, please do not >>hesitate to respond to this message. The DT looks forward to >>receiving your feedback. >> >>Best wishes, >> >>Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair >Content-Type: application/msword; > name="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September 2016.doc"; > x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September" > 2016.doc" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:1gmqnEhp7gkCouELrLqnZyNOqReRcVRm6NYT5thEWR36TD1tnCgjJL/PlgcB0SdatHpmKhDmZUbEzBvB6AoEKNqG9VjIUmW9DThrIu0Ejx92/6ruy0N4kEDXc395WldzfI+EmEZ/j5DSERwf9MzBb6FpVQCUVJAwJoqLlFub9ytahPHLevWmvt5o86/ZV60BYHI0UPGqpLgrMu/0Cv25xQ== > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September 2016.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September" > 2016.pdf" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:1gmqnEhp7gkCouELrLqnZyNOqReRcVRm6NYT5thEWR36TD1tnCgjJL/PlgcB0SdatHpmKhDmZUbEzBvB6AoEKNqG9VjIUmW9DThrIu0Ejx92/6ruy0N4kEDXc395WldzfI+EmEZ/j5DSERwf9MzBb6FpVQCUVJAwJoqLlFub9ytahPHLevWmvt5o86/ZV60BYHI0UPGqpLgrMu/0Cv25xQ== > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:1gmqnEhp7gkCouELrLqnZyNOqReRcVRm6NYT5thEWR36TD1tnCgjJL/PlgcB0SdatHpmKhDmZUbEzBvB6AoEKNqG9VjIUmW9DThrIu0Ejx92/6ruy0N4kEDXc395WldzfI+EmEZ/j5DSERwf9MzBb6FpVQCUVJAwJoqLlFub9ytahPHLevWmvt5o86/ZV60BYHI0UPGqpLgrMu/0Cv25xQ== > >_______________________________________________ >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…

2 2

Expression of Interest
by Yrjö Länsipuro Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear all, Below please find my Expression of Interest in continuing to serve as the ALAC Liaison to GAC, now on an interim basis, for the next regular term. I also attach my CV. Both can be posted on public lists. Best, Yrjö Expression of Interest in serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC I’m interested in continuing my service as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC (now on an interim basis) for the regular 2016-2017 term. Enhancing communication and exploring common ground for joint action between the ALAC and the GAC present a great opportunity for strengthening ICANN’s public interest orientation. ALAC and GAC both cater to the interests of end-users/consumers/citizens , and are natural partners on many policy issues. However, their institutional cultures and operational procedures are rather different. That is why the ALAC Liaison needs to be thoroughly familiar with the GAC – someone with a foot in both camps. I believe that my background enables me to act successfully in this role. After a long career in print and TV journalism, I served in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland 1992-2009. As the Press Counselor at the Finnish Embassy in Washington DC and later as the Director General of the Department for Press and Culture, I can say I played a leading role in pushing through the early adoption of Internet tools into the service of Finnish public diplomacy. In 2005, the Ministry put me in charge of coordinating international ICT and Information Society issues, including WSIS and its many-faceted follow-up. In 2006-2009, I represented the Finnish government on the GAC, defended the emerging multistakeholder concept of Internet Governance on a variety of inter-governmental fora such as ITU and CSTD and arranged Finnish funding for the initial phases of the IGF and EuroDIG. On a personal basis, I was a member of the ICANN President’s Strategy Committee that produced guidelines for improving the institutional confidence in ICANN. After leaving government service I became active in ISOC Finland, an ALS of the At-large and EURALO. I’m a member of its Board, as well as of the EURALO Board, since 2010, and since 2012 the President of ISOC Finland. At EURALO’s suggestion, ALAC delegated me as their voting representative in ICANN’s Nominating Committees for 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016. I served as the Chair of the 2013 NomCom and as the Associate Chair of the 2014 NomCom. Since my appointment as ALAC’s interim Liaison to the GAC, I have worked to establish the ground principles and working modalities that would draw the maximum benefit for both bodies of the new arrangement. I have been remarkably well received by my former colleagues on the CAG – many are still there – as well as other GAC members and staff.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Evan, I don't see that one precludes the other. Yes, it is a relief that the initiative to block the transition through the budget proposal seems to have died and I am grateful. But in my mind, the real celebration is the Stewardship transition (not only to ICANN for the names function but to the numbers and protocol communities for their aspects of it). This transition was envisioned (albeit perhaps not in the exact form it has taken) quite a number of years ago, and it appears that it will now happen. Finally. That *is* a cause for celebration in my mind. I and others have spent a very large part of the last two years with this as the target, in many cases at large expense to ones personal and even professional life. To have seen that dissolve into completely wasted time would have been very regretful, at least to me. And yes, some of the accountability work would still bear fruit, but my statement stands. That being said, as with every momentous occasion be it a significant life event or milestone, it is proper to look at how we got here and what we have learned. If ICANN had followed different paths (as, in some cases, both you and I advocated), ICANN would have been deemed more trustworthy and the entire Names Stewardship Transition Proposal would have been *FAR* easier. And simpler. And faster. And cheaper. If ICANN had been as open and transparent as it should have been (in my not at all humble opinion), we might still have had some accountability work to do, but that too would have been much simpler. Would that have eliminated that US-centric effort to "keep the Internet American" with all of its grossly inaccurate rhetoric? Not a chance! But we would have had a better defence. So yes, we have blown a lot over the last nearly two decades. And we need to learn from that. But a bit of a party and self-congratulations for the work we did do and pleasure over the fact that the US government will be out of this aspect of Internet governance is not out of order either. Alan At 29/09/2016 09:14 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >As I said in the Skype chat: > >This news is not cause for celebration. It is a >moment to pause and reflect on a completely >preventable incident that, thanks to a >combination of timing, frantic activity and a >good dose of pure luck, avoided rejection of >years of hard work and a massive humiliation. > >There WILL be other challenges. The transition >brings benefits, but it also eliminates any >formal state's documented commitment to ICANN's >legitimacy. So long as it is not a treaty >organisation its activity will be subject to >ongoing scrutiny both global and local. And it >is a grotesque mistake to interpret >congressional bypass of Ted Cruz's crass >political initiative as endorsement of ICANN. > >I see no evidence that the broader support >community has learned anything from this >experience, meaning that it remains unprepared >for future, more sophisticated attacks. > >ICANN remains no less out of touch with the >public it claims to serve, than it was before >Ted Cruz learned about it. This incident was not >only a brush with catastrophe, it was a wakeup call. > >- Evan (via mobile) >On 29 Sep 2016, at 07:02, "LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez >AmbÃa" <<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >This is great news Alan. We're witnessing >history. Congratulations to all who have made it possible. > >Saludos, > > >LeÃ³n > >El sep. 29, 2016, a las 4:38 AM, Javier Rua ><<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>javrua(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > >>Great News! >> >>Javier RÃºa-Jovet >> >>+1-787-396-6511 >>@javrua >><http://linkedin.com/javrua>linkedin.com/javrua >> >>>On Sep 28, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>> >>>According to reports, both the US House of >>>Representatives and Senate have passed the >>>Continuing Resolution funding the US >>>government for the period starting October 1 >>>through early December WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. >>> >>>The implication is that the IANA Contract with >>>the NTIA will lapse, the new ICANN Bylaws will >>>be in effect and the stewardship transition will be a done-deal. >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online:

2 1

Updated IANA Transition IP letter
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

>Hi Alan, > >Previously attached was a draft of the instruction letter. I am attaching >here the final instruction letter that was sent to ICANN, which reflects >the CWG¹s appointment of Greg Shatan, Maarten Simon, and Christopher >Wilkinson. > >Thank you, > >Trang

1 0

IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

According to reports, both the US House of Representatives and Senate have passed the Continuing Resolution funding the US government for the period starting October 1 through early December WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. The implication is that the IANA Contract with the NTIA will lapse, the new ICANN Bylaws will be in effect and the stewardship transition will be a done-deal. Alan

7 6

URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

The following has just been brought to my attention. As described in the message forwarded below, the ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support the proposal regarding the handling of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names. They will be transferred to the IETF Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). In summary: - ICANN will act as the signatory to the agreements on behalf of the Names Community - The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide direction to ICANN in this respect. - In the event that the CWG no longer exists, the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will collectively direct ICANN in this respect. - Initial Names Community CCG representatives shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who has overseen the entire IP process. There has been extensive discussion within the CWG on this and I believe that the resultant plan more than meets ICANN's needs. The US Congress has not blocked the transition, but a number of US States are attempting to do so through the courts. At this point we are presuming that the Stewardship will go through and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other explicit responsibilities and is not empowered to make substantive decisions on the part of the ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I will come back to the ALAC for ratification. IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. Alan >From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> >Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship > Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 > >Dear Chairs, > >Please see below a note from the Jonathan >Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >-- >Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, > >As part of the transition implementation work, >representatives from the names community, the >numbers community, the protocol parameters >community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF >Trust and to govern the relationships amongst >the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. > >These agreements are: > >- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement >transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. > >- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA >services.): These agreements allows for the IANA >functions operator to use the IPR. > >- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement >explains the rights and obligations of the IETF >Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. > >After a public comment period last month, the >agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. > >One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as >part of the work was to identify who would be >the signatory of the Community Agreement on >behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >made by the group, with input from CWG external >counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An >instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. > >The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >confirms the request of the Cross Community >Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >(CWG) for the benefit of those of its listed >chartering organizations the Country Code >Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the >Security and Stability Advisory Committee >(SSAC), the Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO), the At Large Advisory >Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental Advisory >Committee (GAC) that have affirmed or >hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to >be included herein (each a Consenting SO/AC >and collectively, the Names Community) that >ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names >Community under the Community Agreement." > >This makes reference to the COs affirming in >writing that they agree to be included in the >instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. > >As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >kindly ask that you provide such a written >confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying >to this email, preferably on or before September >30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. > >Thank you for your cooperation, > >Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.

4 3

Expression of Interest - ALAC liaison to the GAC
by Vanda Scartezini Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Dear members Attached my Expression of Interest related to ALAC’s Liaison to the GAC position. I remain at your disposition to answer any question. Kind regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

5 5

Re: [ALAC] IANA Transition
by Murray McKercher Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

_______________________________________________ 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…

1 0

Call for nominations: ALAC Liaisons.
by jjs＠dyalog.net Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

To the Chair & Members of the ALAC, this is my Expression of Interest to serve as ALAC Liaison to the GAC. In support of my candidacy, here is a brief summary of my relevant experience: Diplomatic service * In Paris: * Policy Planning Staff * Deputy Director, Asia & Pacific department * Alternate Director, International Development department * Alternate Director, North-, Central- and South- America department. * Overseas: * Embassy Secretary, Singapore * Political Counsellor, Japan * Minister Counsellor, Japan * Ambassador & Permanent Representative to WEU, Brussels * Ambassador to Estonia * Ambassador to Finland * Acting Governor, Board of Governors, ASEF Board experience * Outside of Internet activities * Chair of the Advisory Board, Institut Pierre Werner, Luxembourg * Board, EUNIC * Internet-related experience * _ICANN Board_ 2007-10 * Co-author, "Improving Institutional Confidence", ICANN President's Strategy Committee, 2009 * _ALAC_ 2010-12, again 2012-14 * Initiator & co-signatory, "Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive & Respected", 2012 * _Member of the ICG, appointed by ALAC_ * _Co-author of the ICG's Proposal to Transition Oversight of the IANA Functions_ * Author of the ICG's Communications Strategy * Member of the NETmundial Initiative Coordination Council 2014-16, supported by EURALO * Founding member & current Chair, EURALO Individual Users' Association * _Initiator & co-signatory, Letters to the President of the United States, to the Speaker and Leadership of the House and to the President pro tempore and Leadership of the Senate, requesting "that the Administration implement, and that the Congress not impede the transition of oversight of the IANA Functions", 12 August 2016_ _ _I would be glad to provide additional information or answer questions from Members of the ALAC.Best regards,Jean-Jacques Subrenat. Sent from [Nylas N1](https://link.nylas.com/link/7q1g7g2rqnx94vh9dq75m6ce7 /local-21cee631-f408/0?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fnylas.com%2Fn1%3Fref%3Dn1&r=YWxh Y0BhdGxhcmdlLWxpc3RzLmljYW5uLm9yZw==), the extensible, open source mail client. ![](https://link.nylas.com/open/7q1g7g2rqnx94vh9dq75m6ce7/local- 21cee631-f408?r=YWxhY0BhdGxhcmdlLWxpc3RzLmljYW5uLm9yZw==)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IANA Transition
by Javier Rua Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Agreed. Thanks for keeping us all in perspective. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 @javrua linkedin.com/javrua > On Sep 29, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > As I said in the Skype chat: > > This news is not cause for celebration. It is a moment to pause and reflect on a completely preventable incident that, thanks to a combination of timing, frantic activity and a good dose of pure luck, avoided rejection of years of hard work and a massive humiliation. > > There WILL be other challenges. The transition brings benefits, but it also eliminates any formal state's documented commitment to ICANN's legitimacy. So long as it is not a treaty organisation its activity will be subject to ongoing scrutiny both global and local. And it is a grotesque mistake to interpret congressional bypass of Ted Cruz's crass political initiative as endorsement of ICANN. > > I see no evidence that the broader support community has learned anything from this experience, meaning that it remains unprepared for future, more sophisticated attacks. > > ICANN remains no less out of touch with the public it claims to serve, than it was before Ted Cruz learned about it. This incident was not only a brush with catastrophe, it was a wakeup call. > > - Evan (via mobile) >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 07:02, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >> This is great news Alan. We're witnessing history. Congratulations to all who have made it possible. >> >> Saludos, >> >> >> León >> >>> El sep. 29, 2016, a las 4:38 AM, Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com> escribió: >>> >>> Great News! >>> >>> Javier Rúa-Jovet >>> >>> +1-787-396-6511 >>> @javrua >>> linkedin.com/javrua >>> >>>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> According to reports, both the US House of Representatives and Senate have passed the Continuing Resolution funding the US government for the period starting October 1 through early December WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. >>>> >>>> The implication is that the IANA Contract with the NTIA will lapse, the new ICANN Bylaws will be in effect and the stewardship transition will be a done-deal. >>>> >>>> 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… >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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… >> >> 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…

1 0

Self Nomination and EOI to serve as the 2016-17 ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Please note and record my self Nomination for this pivotal role to the ALAC. It is a role I have held for 6 months previously, and would very much appreciate the opportunity to return to this important work as a representative of ALAC and the Interests of the At-Large Community. My EOI with some background information for the Selection Committees consideration is attached and my be published. *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

1 0

Consensus Call: ALAC Ratification of the ongoing CCWG FY17 Budget
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

You will recall that on 23 August 2016, we held a Webinar of the proposed CCWG cost control mechanisms. Although many ALAC Members were not able to attend the Webinar, I presume that most or all have since reviewed the material. The agenda can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/iBCsAw and it points to recordings and transcripts (EN, ES, FR) as well as the full AdobeConnect recording. For those who participate in the CCWG, this was also presented at its meeting of 21 June 2016. That meeting along with its recordings and transcripts can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/ECOOAw. A document describing the process and budget in detail is attached. In my opinion, I believe that the proposed way forward is reasonable and I recommend that the ALAC ratify this proposal. Upon ratification by all of the chartering organizations, it will be forwarded to the Board for its approval. With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC requesting that the ALAC ratify the proposed plan and budget. The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 on Monday, 05 October 2016. If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either this list or to me directly. Although message indicating support are welcome, they are not necessary. Should this Consensus Call fail due to significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1), we will revert to a formal vote. Alan

1 0

GAC and CCWG on Auction Proceeds
by Yrjö Länsipuro Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Hi all, During Tuesday's ALAC call, there was a question whether GAC is among the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Auctions Proceeds. I checked with the GAC Secretariat; it is not. Best, Yrjö

1 0

Fwd: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 27, 2016

Sept. 27, 2016

Somehow this got lost and never went to the ALAC. We will clearly not meet the deadline, but I have said we would reply as soon as possible. A bit of background. As the draft Charter says, the work of the CCWG will not be to allocate funds, but to develop a process for doing this. A lot of work has gone into the draft charter, and I believe that it is close to ready. There are many constraints on what the funds can be used for based on the ICANN Bylaws, and given the amount of money (currently $235,000,000 if the .web auction stands) conflict of interest is a very serious matter. Please get any comments to me by the end of Monday at the very latest. Of crucial importance are matters of substance which would stop the ALAC from ratifying the charter. If you find typos and such, please let me know but that is not the focus. Alan >Subject: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG >Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:41:28 +0000 > > >Sending on behalf of Jonathan Robinson, new gTLD Auction Proceeds >Drafting Team Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair: > >Dear SO/AC Chairs, > >On behalf of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (DT), we >are delighted to submit to you and your respective SO/ACs, the >proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD >Auction Proceeds. As you may recall, representatives of all ICANN >SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO (which decided not to take part in the >DT effort), participated in the DT deliberations (see ><https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw>https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw >for DT members). > >This proposed charter is the result of extensive input and >deliberations, including careful review of input that was received >as part of the cross-community session at ICANN 56 in Helsinki (see ><https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)>https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw) >and we believe it now represents a careful balance between the >different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT >Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT >would like to request you review the proposed charter with this >careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent issues >that would prevent your respective SO/AC from adopting this charter. >We would like to request you highlight such pertinent issues by 30 >September 2016 at the latest, including an indication of when you >anticipate your respective SO/AC to be in a position to consider the >charter for adoption following 30 September, provided that no >pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs. > >Of course, should you have any clarifying questions, please do not >hesitate to respond to this message. The DT looks forward to >receiving your feedback. > >Best wishes, > >Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair >

1 0

Nomination for .MOBI
by Wafa Dahmani Sept. 26, 2016

Sept. 26, 2016

Dear all, Hope this mail finds you well. I'm writing this mail to nominate myself for the .MOBI ALAC Liaison position. please find in attachement my EOI. Best Regards,

2 1

Fwd: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 22, 2016

Sept. 22, 2016

See the following message. An extension to Friday has been requested and I hope will be honoured. See my following very hastily prepared comments. Let me know how they match yours. Alan 1. DNS and Content Regulation 1 This session does not seem to allow for significant audience participation and I beleive some of the premises are false. 2. gTLD Marketplace Health index 2 Unclear if the session is on the marketplace or the index and I think more prep is needed prior to this being a high interest session. 3. How to do outreach within each SO/AC 3 Could be of interest if only to demonstrate the differences between groups and what outreach means to each. 4. ICANN Contribution to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda 1 Although I personally would find this interesting, I am not sure it is really within the ICANN mandate nor would be of general interest. 5. ICANN Support for Multistakeholder Initiatives for Advancing Online Child Protection 3 Although the format is not detailed, this topic is very much in line with ALAC concerns about the lack of controls on new gTLDs. 6. Internet Governance - Public Session 3 I would support this. Fragmantation is an issue that will be of increasing interest, particularly if the IANA transition does not go through. 7. Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs 3 Again, no indication of session format, but presuming an opportunity for audience participation I think that this would be of interest to us. 8. Operational session on KPIs, regarding ICANN's reach, spending, and engagement strategies ? I don't have a dgood feeling for this one. 9. Public Interest 3 Definitely 10. The role of the No-Commercial stakeholders within ICANN. A dialogue to foster understanding and co-operation within ICANN. 1 This description talks about non-commercial stakeholders within ICANN, but seems to focus purely within the GNSO. If indeed it was wider than that, I would support it. 11. Transparency on legal advice given to ICANN [to preserve its principles and openness 3 I would support this, although I am dubious on the outcomes. 12. Underserved Regions in ICANN 3 Again no info on session format, but the topic could be of interest. 13. Universal Consumer Awareness about the largest ever expansion of the Internet 3 I agreed tat the ALAC would partiicpate in this session, but explicitly said we would not likely support a Ry request for ICANN to embark on a program to support growth in use of new gTLDs. 14. Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives 3 There is so much going on that such an update would be of use. 15. What ICANN does not do and why! 3 I like the idea! >From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> >To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv>, "thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" > <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, > "paf(a)netnod.se" <paf(a)netnod.se>, "James M. > Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, "louie(a)louie.net" <louie(a)louie.net>, > "tsinha(a)umd.edu" <tsinha(a)umd.edu>, > "bverd(a)verisign.com" <bverd(a)verisign.com>, > "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, > "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, > "gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com" > <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, "hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr" > <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, > "tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org" <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org>, > "'mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'" <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "sb(a)inapp.com" <sb(a)inapp.com>, "cwilson(a)21cf.com" > <cwilson(a)21cf.com>, Klaus Stoll > <klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org>, Rafik Dammak > <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, > "gbunton(a)tucows.com" <gbunton(a)tucows.com>, "Oscar > Robles" <oscar(a)lacnic.net>, "hcarrascob(a)gmail.com" <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >CC: Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" > <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> >Subject: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps >Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:34:58 +0000 > >A message from the Meetings team asking for your inputs. > >Regards David > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Dear SO-AC Leaders: > >A total of 15 potential topics for high-interest >session slots have been identified by your >groups for ICANN57 in Hyderabad. With just seven >slots available for these, wed like to invite >you to take one more step towards finalizing topics for the meeting.Â > >Please see details for the potential topics at ><https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews>https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews >and a corresponding review form >atÂ ><https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/>https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/. > > >As noted on the form, please use the following >high-interest session criteria to support your selections: > >- Topic has potential to attract a large >audience (200+) and be of interest across most, if not all SO/ACs. >- Proposed format allows for adequate audience >participation within a 75-90 minute session slot. >- Topic has clear goals and objectives which are >closely aligned with ICANNs mission and core values. > >Your responses will be used to identify seven >(7) topics for the main meeting room high-interest session slots. > >Please submit your reviews as soon as possible >but no later than EOD 18 September. > >Tanzanica S. King >Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design >ICANN > >OfficeÂ Â +1 310 301 5800 >MobileÂ +1 310 995 3038 >EmailÂ Â Â king(a)icann.org >www.icann.org > > >

11 10

Board Resolutions from 15 September 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear ALAC, The Board had a special meeting on 17 September 2016 and made a decision that tasked the CEO to undertake an independent review of staff interaction with the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) provider - the Economist Intelligence Unit - in the CPE process. I have pasted the full resolution below. Best regards, Rinalia 17 September Board Meeting: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/ resolutions-2016-09-17-en Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 17 Sep 2016 1. *Main Agenda: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en#1>* 1. *President and CEO Review of New gTLD Community Priority Evaluation Report Procedures <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en#1.a>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.09.17.01 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en#1.…>* 1. Main Agenda: 1. President and CEO Review of New gTLDCommunity Priority Evaluation Report Procedures Whereas, the Board has discussed various aspects of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process, including some issues that were identified in the Final Declaration from the Independent Review Process (IRP) proceeding initiated by Dot Registry LLC. Whereas, the Board would like to have some additional information related to how ICANN staff members interact with the CPE provider, and in particular with respect to the CPE provider's CPE reports. Resolved (2016.09.17.01), the Board hereby directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to undertake an independent review of the process by which ICANN staff interacted with the CPE provider, both generally and specifically with respect to the CPE reports issued by the CPE Provider. *Rationale for Resolution 2016.09.17.01* Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) is a method to resolve string contention for New gTLDapplications. It occurs if a community application is both in contention and elects to pursue CPE. The evaluation is an independent analysis conducted by a panel from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). As part of its process, the CPE provider reviews and scores a community applicant that has elected CPE against the following four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus between Proposed String and Community; Registration Policies, and Community Endorsement. An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation. At various points in the implementation of the New gTLDProgram, the Board (and the Board New gTLD Program Committee) have discussed various aspects of CPE. Recently, the Board has discussed some issues with the CPE process, including certain issues that were identified in the Final Declaration from the Independent Review Process (IRP) proceeding initiated by Dot Registry LLC. The Board is taking action at this time to direct the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to undertake a review of the process by which ICANN staff interacts with the CPE provider in issuing its CPE reports. The review should include an overall evaluation of staff's interaction with the CPE provider, as well as any interaction staff may have with respect to the CPE provider preparing its CPE reports. The Board's action to initiate this review is intended to have a positive impact on the community as it will help to provide greater transparency into the CPE evaluation process. Additionally, by undertaking additional due diligence in the administration of the CPE process, the Board intends this review to help gather additional facts and information that may be helpful in addressing uncertainty about staff interaction with the CPE provider. As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents: - New gTLD Applicant Guidebook <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.9 MB] - Final Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-16aug13-en.pdf>[PDF, 803 KB] - Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Panel Process Document <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/panel-process-07aug14-en.pdf> [PDF, 314 KB] - Dot Registry v. ICANNIndependent Review Process Final Declaration <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dot-registry-v-icann-2014-09-25-en> There may be some minor fiscal impact depending on the method of review that the President and CEO chooses to undertake, but none that would be outside of the current budget for administering the New gTLD Program. Initiating a review of the process by which ICANN staff interacts with the CPE provider is not anticipated to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment. Published on 20 September 2016

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps
by Barrack Otieno Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

To add on Wafa's point, users need to understand the product and its eco-system to enable them appreciate and provide feedback for improving the system in future. I agree with the proposal Wafa has made. Regards On Sep 21, 2016 1:37 AM, "Wafa Dahmani" <wafa(a)ati.tn> wrote: Hi Alan, I have just one comment for the point number 1.DNS and Content Regulation agree with you about the audiance but I think that the topic is relevant. We are used to say that content is not of the remits of ICANN but this issue was usually disscussed in the DNS forums I attended. it would be interesting to see how we can extend the ICANN perimiter. Best Le 20/09/2016 04:33, Alan Greenberg a écrit : See the following message. An extension to Friday has been requested and I hope will be honoured. See my following very hastily prepared comments. Let me know how they match yours. Alan 1. DNS and Content Regulation 1 This session does not seem to allow for significant audience participation and I beleive some of the premises are false. 2. gTLD Marketplace Health index 2 Unclear if the session is on the marketplace or the index and I think more prep is needed prior to this being a high interest session. 3. How to do outreach within each SO/AC 3 Could be of interest if only to demonstrate the differences between groups and what outreach means to each. 4. ICANN Contribution to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda 1 Although I personally would find this interesting, I am not sure it is really within the ICANN mandate nor would be of general interest. 5. ICANN Support for Multistakeholder Initiatives for Advancing Online Child Protection 3 Although the format is not detailed, this topic is very much in line with ALAC concerns about the lack of controls on new gTLDs. 6. Internet Governance - Public Session 3 I would support this. Fragmantation is an issue that will be of increasing interest, particularly if the IANA transition does not go through. 7. Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs 3 Again, no indication of session format, but presuming an opportunity for audience participation I think that this would be of interest to us. 8. Operational session on KPIs, regarding ICANN's reach, spending, and engagement strategies ? I don't have a dgood feeling for this one. 9. Public Interest 3 Definitely 10. The role of the No-Commercial stakeholders within ICANN. A dialogue to foster understanding and co-operation within ICANN. 1 This description talks about non-commercial stakeholders within ICANN, but seems to focus purely within the GNSO. If indeed it was wider than that, I would support it. 11. Transparency on legal advice given to ICANN [to preserve its principles and openness 3 I would support this, although I am dubious on the outcomes. 12. Underserved Regions in ICANN 3 Again no info on session format, but the topic could be of interest. 13. Universal Consumer Awareness about the largest ever expansion of the Internet 3 I agreed tat the ALAC would partiicpate in this session, but explicitly said we would not likely support a Ry request for ICANN to embark on a program to support growth in use of new gTLDs. 14. Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives 3 There is so much going on that such an update would be of use. 15. What ICANN does not do and why! 3 I like the idea! From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> <david.olive(a)icann.org> To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> <katrina(a)nic.lv>, "thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, "paf(a)netnod.se" <paf(a)netnod.se> <paf(a)netnod.se> <paf(a)netnod.se>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, "louie(a)louie.net" <louie(a)louie.net> <louie(a)louie.net> <louie(a)louie.net>, "tsinha(a)umd.edu" <tsinha(a)umd.edu> <tsinha(a)umd.edu> <tsinha(a)umd.edu>, "bverd(a)verisign.com" <bverd(a)verisign.com> <bverd(a)verisign.com> <bverd(a)verisign.com>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, "hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr" <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr> <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr> <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> <ocl(a)gih.com>, "tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org" <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org> <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org> <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org>, "'mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'" <'mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'> <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com> <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org> <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "sb(a)inapp.com" <sb(a)inapp.com> <sb(a)inapp.com> <sb(a)inapp.com>, "cwilson(a)21cf.com" <cwilson(a)21cf.com> <cwilson(a)21cf.com> <cwilson(a)21cf.com>, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org> <klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, "gbunton(a)tucows.com" <gbunton(a)tucows.com> <gbunton(a)tucows.com> <gbunton(a)tucows.com>, "Oscar Robles" <oscar(a)lacnic.net> <oscar(a)lacnic.net>, "hcarrascob(a)gmail.com" <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> CC: Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org> <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> Subject: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:34:58 +0000 A message from the Meetings team asking for your inputs. Regards David --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear SO-AC Leaders: A total of 15 potential topics for high-interest session slots have been identified by your groups for ICANN57 in Hyderabad. With just seven slots available for these, we’d like to invite you to take one more step towards finalizing topics for the meeting.Â Please see details for the potential topics at https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews and a corresponding review form atÂ https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/ icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/. As noted on the form, please use the following high-interest session criteria to support your selections: - Topic has potential to attract a large audience (200+) and be of interest across most, if not all SO/ACs. - Proposed format allows for adequate audience participation within a 75-90 minute session slot. - Topic has clear goals and objectives which are closely aligned with ICANN’s mission and core values. Your responses will be used to identify seven (7) topics for the main meeting room high-interest session slots. Please submit your reviews as soon as possible but no later than EOD 18 September. Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN OfficeÂ Â +1 310 301 5800 MobileÂ +1 310 995 3038 EmailÂ Â Â king(a)icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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… _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Thanks everyone. Note that the request was not to pick our favorites, but which ones met the criteria (wide audience, good format, clear goals aligned with ICANN mission and core values). Alan At 20/09/2016 12:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Your selections are largely okay, though I would >select have selected 3,5,6,8,9,14,15 instead >which is not so different from yours > >Cheers! >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 20 Sep 2016 4:34 a.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >See the following message. An extension to >Friday has been requested and I hope will be >honoured. See my following very hastily prepared >comments. Let me know how they match yours. Alan > >1. DNS and Content Regulation > 1 This session does not seem to allow > for significant audience participation and I > beleive some of the premises are false. > >2. gTLD Marketplace Health index > 2 Unclear if the session is on the > marketplace or the index and I think more prep > is needed prior to this being a high interest session. > >3. How to do outreach within each SO/AC > 3 Could be of interest if only to > demonstrate the differences between groups and what outreach means to each. > >4. ICANN Contribution to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda > 1 Although I personally would find this > interesting, I am not sure it is really within > the ICANN mandate nor would be of general interest. > >5. ICANN Support for Multistakeholder >Initiatives for Advancing Online Child Protection > 3 Although the format is not detailed, > this topic is very much in line with ALAC > concerns about the lack of controls on new gTLDs. > >6. Internet Governance - Public Session > 3 I would support this. Fragmantation > is an issue that will be of increasing > interest, particularly if the IANA transition does not go through. > >7. Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs > 3 Again, no indication of session > format, but presuming an opportunity for > audience participation I think that this would be of interest to us. > >8. Operational session on KPIs, regarding >ICANN's reach, spending, and engagement strategies > ? I don't have a dgood feeling for this one. > >9. Public Interest > 3 Definitely > >10. The role of the No-Commercial stakeholders >within ICANN. A dialogue to foster understanding >and co-operation within ICANN. > 1 This description talks about > non-commercial stakeholders within ICANN, but > seems to focus purely within the GNSO. If > indeed it was wider than that, I would support it. > >11. Transparency on legal advice given to ICANN >[to preserve its principles and openness > 3 I would support this, although I am dubious on the outcomes. > >12. Underserved Regions in ICANN > 3 Again no info on session format, but > the topic could be of interest. > >13. Universal Consumer Awareness about the >largest ever expansion of the Internet > 3 I agreed tat the ALAC would > partiicpate in this session, but explicitly > said we would not likely support a Ry request > for ICANN to embark on a program to support growth in use of new gTLDs. > >14. Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives > 3 There is so much going on that such an update would be of use. > >15. What ICANN does not do and why! > 3 I like the idea! > > >>From: David Olive <<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>david.olive(a)icann.org> >>To: Katrina Sataki >><<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>katrina(a)nic.lv>, >>"<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" >> >><<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, >>"<mailto:paf@netnod.se>paf(a)netnod.se" >><<mailto:paf@netnod.se>paf(a)netnod.se>, "James M. >> Bladel" >> <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, >> "<mailto:louie@louie.net>louie(a)louie.net" >> <<mailto:louie@louie.net>louie(a)louie.net>, >> >>"<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>tsinha(a)umd.edu" >><<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>tsinha(a)umd.edu>, >>"<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>bverd(a)verisign.com" >><<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>bverd(a)verisign.com>, >> >>"<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >> >>"<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" >><<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, >> >>"<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com" >><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, >>"<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr" >> >><<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr>, >>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com>, >> >>"<mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org>tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org" >><<mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org>tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org>, >> >>"'<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'" >><<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>, Paul Diaz >> >><<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>pdiaz(a)pir.org>, >>"<mailto:sb@inapp.com>sb(a)inapp.com" >><<mailto:sb@inapp.com>sb(a)inapp.com>, >>"<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>cwilson(a)21cf.com" >> >><<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>cwilson(a)21cf.com>, >>Klaus Stoll >><<mailto:klaus.stoll@gkpfoundation.org>klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org>, >>Rafik Dammak >> >><<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, >>"<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>gbunton(a)tucows.com" >><<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>gbunton(a)tucows.com>, "Oscar >> Robles" >> <<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>oscar(a)lacnic.net>, >> "<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>hcarrascob(a)gmail.com" >> <<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >>CC: Nick Tomasso >><<mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org>nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" >> <<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> >>Subject: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps >>Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:34:58 +0000 >> >>A message from the Meetings team asking for your inputs. >> >>Regards David >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>Dear SO-AC Leaders: >> >>A total of 15 potential topics for >>high-interest session slots have been >>identified by your groups for ICANN57 in >>Hyderabad. With just seven slots available for >>these, weâd like to invite you to take one >>more step towards finalizing topics for the meeting.Ã >> >>Please see details for the potential topics at >><https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews>https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews >>and a corresponding review form >>atÃ >><https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/>https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/. >> >> >>As noted on the form, please use the following >>high-interest session criteria to support your selections: >> >>- Topic has potential to attract a large >>audience (200+) and be of interest across most, if not all SO/ACs. >>- Proposed format allows for adequate audience >>participation within a 75-90 minute session slot. >>- Topic has clear goals and objectives which >>are closely aligned with ICANNâs mission and core values. >> >>Your responses will be used to identify seven >>(7) topics for the main meeting room high-interest session slots. >> >>Please submit your reviews as soon as possible >>but no later than EOD 18 September. >> >>Tanzanica S. King >>Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design >>ICANN >> >>OfficeÃ Ã <tel:%2B1%20310%20301%205800>+1 310 301 5800 >>MobileÃ <tel:%2B1%20310%20995%203038>+1 310 995 3038 >>EmailÃ Ã Ã <mailto:king@icann.org>king(a)icann.org >>www.icann.org >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0