September 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Consensus Call: ALAC Statements on IANA Agreements
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

As discussed on the ALAC call of 23 August 2016 I was asked to draft very brief statements on the IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IANA Naming Function Agreement (the agreement with PTI). I did so later that day. At the ALT meeting there was a wording change suggested to the Naming Function statement, which has since been incorporated. The IPR statement did not take into account changes that have been proposed during CWG meetings, and a minor change has been made so that our statement incorporates those as well. There have been no further comments on either statement. The policy pages can be found at: - <https://community.icann.org/x/tAusAw>IANA IPR Agreements - <https://community.icann.org/x/mAqsAw>IANA Naming Function Agreement For your convenience, the full text of the statements is reproduced below. With this e-mail, I am calling for a Consensus Call of the ALAC on these two statements. I request that another member second this and request that any objections be raised by ALAC Members prior to 14 September at 23:59 UTC. If you support these statements, no action is required. ==================================== The resolution of the Intellectual Property issues related to the IANA transition required significant effort from Members of all three IANA communities, ICANN, and legal counsel. The ALAC supports the final set of agreements and appreciates the efforts that were required to come to agreement in a timely manner. The ALAC supports the IANA Naming Function Agreement and deeply appreciates all of the efforts of CWG Members, ICANN Staff and external legal counsel in finalizing this agreement in a timely manner.

2 1

ICANN CEO responds to questions on IANA transition
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions

1 0

ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [ALAC-Announce] Call for Volunteers: Advisory Panel on gTLD Marketplace Health Index
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Christopher, thank you for your comments. Please be so kind to find my comments inline: On 26/08/2016 23:53, CW Mail wrote: > Dear Olivier: > > I regret that I was not aware that this activity had been going on during the past year. > Actually, I do not understand the rationale for conducting a 'market health' activity in parallel with the CCCT review. They both address the same underlying issues. Yes and no. The CCCT review is a review that looks at the program as a whole and sees whether it has delivered what it promised to deliver. The Marketplace Health Index is a program implementation based on the CCCT review's prior work. > > Regarding the proposed metrics, I am rather perplexed. Interesting as they may be, they do not address any of the fundamental measurements of 'market health'. > Rather, we need to be looking at some basic - indeed classic - measurements of market performance (most of which are already reported to national statistical authorities), such as: > > 1. Financial turnover in recent years (e.g. last 5 years) of Registries and Registrars, normalised to a common exchange rate. Distinguish existing and new Registries and Registrars. Frankly I do not know how that would be obtained bearing in mind the significant number of Registries and Registrars that operate in jurisdictions or have an operational vehicle that do not mandate for the publication of audited accounts. > > 2. Market share data; degree of concentration or competition, rate of penetration of the 'new' gTLDs since they were launched. How have new gTLD registrations been financed? The first part of your suggestion is, I think, covered by the proposed ALAC comments made under "Competition", where we ask for the share of the market. As for the second part, how have new gTLD registrations been financed, how would you suggest this be found considering ICANN has absolutely no visibility over this? > > 3. Investment data: how much has been invested in the creation of new gTLDs; how much is invested by existing gTLDs. How was the investment financed? Again - where would this data be found when a significant number of actors operate without being required to submit such data? > > 4. Employment data: How many people work in this new industry? Distributed by Registries and Registrars. Distinguish existing large, medium sized entities and new gTLD entrants. > Distributed by geographic area. Again - how? I don't even think that the DNA (Domain Name Association) knows this. > > 5. Trade Data: We are looking at a branch of international trade in IT services. What proportion of existing and new turnover of Registries and Registrars derives from domestic (national) business and from international business (e.g. Registry business with Registrars in third countries and registrations by registrants in third countries.) I agree that this would be very helpful, but how would this data be gathered? Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

ALAC Liaisons to AC/SO/.mobi
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

In recent years, the ALAC, as provided in its RoP, has on occasion renewed some or all of its Liaisons without opening a formal call for nominations. In each case this was done as a conscious decision of the ALAC. Following last year's appointments, a few ALAC Members raised concerns about this process. Accordingly, I polled the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee this year. Of the 10 members, 6 responded and 5 of those recommended that we open full nominations for all positions. That of course includes the GAC Liaison where we had already decided to follow this path this year. Accordingly, a Call for Nominations will be issued shortly for the Liaisons for the GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and .mobi. Alan

2 1

URGENT: SAC084 SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2016

Sept. 5, 2016

The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314) a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept. In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable. I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board. Alan At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process >Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 >August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: ><https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents >with the file at ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf. >It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: ><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/ms…>https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/ms…. > > >In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP >does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and >stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that >have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these >principles is critical for the continued interoperability and >stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk >of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, >including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that >Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is >why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as >a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it >simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that >increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone. > >The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not accept the proposed >guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to >the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a >revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the >principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability. > >For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I >believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report. > >Cheers, Julie

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Revised Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2016

Sept. 3, 2016

We have confirmation from ICANN Legal and the IANA Transition team that the proposed changes to our RoP satisfy the requirements for the Empowered Community. Alan At 31/08/2016 02:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Following our discussion during the ALAC meeting on 23 August 2016, >I have incorporated the discussed changes and present them here. > >The changes include: > >Section 2: Definitions - a revised definition of Empowered Community. > >Paragraph 23.1: Minor corrections > >Paragraph 23.2: re-wording to address concern expressed by Tijani > >Paragraph 24.2: Clarification that unless extraordinary >circumstances warrant it, all decisions including those related to >Directors will be done by open vote. > >Paragraph 24.3: As per discussion, the change of the EC >Administrator will be done by standard ALAC Super-majority vote. > >Paragraph 24.4: Transition provision re-appointing current At-Large >Director under EC rules. > >I am requesting that Heidi check with ICANN Legal to ensure that the >new 23 and 24 cover our responsibilities under the new Bylaws. > >Alan >

4 3