October 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Face-to-Face Session II - Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 1, 2017

Nov. 1, 2017

I also note that the APRALO General Assembly conflicts with the first half of the meeting as they both start at 8.30am except this meeting will conclude at 12.30 compared to the APRALO GA which is scheduled to finish early. On 1 Nov 2017 05:53, "Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro" <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu> wrote: > > - > Event Feed > - [image: user.profile.name] > > Profile <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/user/edit> > > - UPCOMING SCHEDULE > - Joint Meeting: ICANN Board & ASO/NRO in 3 hours *Hall 4 > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/278774/1366976> > - At-Large APRALO General Assembly Part 1 in 3 hours *Hall B, Sec. A > (ALAC) <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/278774/1367074> > - GNSO-Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) Geo TLD Group Sharing > Session in 3 hours Capital Suite 14 > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/278774/1367046> > - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Face-to-Face Session II - > Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level in 3 hours *Hall B, > Sec. B/C (GNSO) > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/278774/1366920> > > YOUR FAVORITESSchedule > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/list/user/day>Sponsors > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/companies/user>Notes > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/user/notes>Documents > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/documents/user>Messages > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/chat_inbox> Log Out > GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Face-to-Face Session II - Work > Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level > DATE & TIME Wednesday, November 1 08:30 - 12:00 > LOCATION > *Hall B, Sec. B/C (GNSO) > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/maps/278784/32879/session/1366920> > TRACKS > > - Working Group / Review Team > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/278774/groups/282582> > - GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) > <https://meetingapp.icann.org/icann60/agenda/278774/groups/282588> > > Remove From Your Schedule Add Your Notes > Tweet about this session > <https://twitter.com/share?text=I%27m%20attending%20GNSO%20New%20gTLD%20Subs…> > DESCRIPTION > > GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Face-to-Face > Meeting: This is a face-to-face meeting of the New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures PDP Working Group’s Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top > Level. This PDP Working Group is tasked with calling upon the community’s > collective experiences from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program to > determine what, if any changes may need to be made to the existing oNew > gTLD policy recommendations from 8 August 2007. Those who are interested in > providing their input into new gTLD policy recommendations for subsequent > procedures are encouraged to attend. Wiki agenda page: > https://community.icann.org/x/qCIhB > > - > > Staff Leader: Steve Chan > > Staff Facilitator: Emily Barabas > > PARTICIPATION LINKS > > Adobe Connect Link: https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hallbc > > English Audio Stream: http://stream.icann.org:8000/abu60-hallbc-en.m3u > > > On 31 Oct 2017 13:38, "Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro" <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu> > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > > 1. Noting that the WT5 Track is on November 1 and post Tatiana's call > on the NCSG listserv for those who are interested to join the discussions, > I signed up. > 2. There is no archived mailing list as the work of the WT5 will > commence on the November 1. I also sought clarification from Martin, the > co-chair of the WT5 where there were any archived discussions with which to > catch up on. > 3. A friend on the GAC recently posted a picture at Abu Dhabi stating > that the GAC had published another consensus statement on the AMAZON. I am > still waiting to see the actual published statement. > 4. In any event, noting that the WT5 will seek to focus on *the > treatment of geographical names at the Top Level.* > 5. Below in "blue" is the first email, I sent the Mailing List on WT5. > All discussions are archived and publicly available via > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/ > <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/> > 6. Given that November 1, 2017 is almost at the door, I decided to > send the email and to also show you a "copy" of what I sent. > 7. If from my list, you feel that there are other things, I should > read up on, that transpired, please let me know. > 8. I would also be interested to see previous ALAC statements on the > "geographical names" issue, or perhaps you could point me to a link and I > could browse through. [Dev and Carlton???] Feel free to email me off list. > > > > Dear All, > > Warm Greetings from Fiji! I trust that you are all well at the ICANN 60 > meeting in Abu Dhabi. I note that there is a meeting on November, 1st > for Work Track 5 (WT5) of the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. Thank you > Martin for opening the call for Volunteers in your capacity as co-Leader > for WT5. > > As a matter of introduction, my name is Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and > usually called Sala. Many years ago, I served on the ALAC. I am a member of > the At Large Community by virtue of my membership of two accredited At > Large Organizations one an ISOC Chapter and the other the South Pacific > Computer Society. I am also a member of the Non Commercial Stakeholder > Group (NCSG). I currently serve on the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG) that assists the IGF Secretariat and Host Governments in convening > the Internet Governance Forums. > > > > > 1. I come with an open mind to learn from each of you on the Track and > also to exchange views and seek ways to focus on the treatment of > geographic names at the top-level. > 2. I was wondering what subsequently transpired following the* Independent > Review * > ICDR No. 01-16-0000-7056 in July 2017 via International Dispute > Resolution between Amazon and ICANN, post the Review > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11…> > . > 3. Noting the ICANN Board Resolution > <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-09-23-en#2.e> on > the 23rd of September, 2017 and the Resolution Text > <https://features.icann.org/consideration-amazon-eu-s%C3%A0rl-v-icann-indepe…> > . > 4. Historical Overview > <http://aodigitalhub.com/2017/10/23/icann-reconsider-amazon-domain-applicati…> by > David Stone on the Amazon saga. > 5. Noting that one of the pillars and core of Amazon's Argument lies > in the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement where they argue that there > can be no "false claims" to geographical names. > 6. Clearly, there are many things to learn from each other in the Work > Track, noting that interest in this topic and divergent views express > across the ICANN community. > 7. On this list, I personally do not represent the views of the > constituencies, I belong to and so the views expressed in this Track will > largely be my personal views unless otherwise expressed. Community views > obviously will need endorsement from within the communities. > 8. I am looking forward to the calls and dialogue that will focus on > the treatment of geographic names on the top level. > 9. If there are any key things I have missed that you think would be > worth reading, please let me know. > 10. Have a good day or evening wherever in the world you are. :) > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Many thanks, > Sala > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Director > Pasifika Nexus > P.O Box 17862 > Suva > *FIJI* > > Cell: +679 7656770 <765%206770> > Tel: +679 3362003 <+679%20336%202003> > E: sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu > Website: www.pasifikanexus.nu > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Possible Decisions during Wrap-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 31, 2017

Oct. 31, 2017

I have a revised version from Thomas and Yrjö late tonight. I will be revising tomorrow morning. What the GAC does with it remains to be seen. Alant At 31/10/2017 04:42 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Hi Alan, > >Has the GAC given any indication that it may be >able to achieve consensus on the joint >statement, given that delegates just saw it for >the first time yesterday? I was a little >surprised at the pushback I saw at the GAC/ALAC >meeting on what I myself thought was non-controversial. > >On 1 November 2017 at 00:35, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >- Joint ALAC/GAC Statement >- ALAC IGF traveller selection methodology >- ATLAS III Team leadership > >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… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto, Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

1 0

Possible Decisions during Wrap-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 31, 2017

Oct. 31, 2017

- Joint ALAC/GAC Statement - ALAC IGF traveller selection methodology - ATLAS III Team leadership Alan

3 2

Manal elected as GAC Chair
by Yrjö Länsipuro Oct. 31, 2017

Oct. 31, 2017

Dear all, The results of the GAC Chair election just in: Manal 59 Olga 50 [cid:3a0ae8d5-3328-46fe-8783-c7cd2276ce15] Best, Yrjö

7 7

Fwd: [icann-board] Background to the Board's letter to SSR2 review team pausing the review
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 30, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)board.icann.org> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 2:39 PM Subject: [icann-board] Background to the Board's letter to SSR2 review team pausing the review To: <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org> Cc: ICANN Board <icann-board(a)icann.org> All, On behalf of the Board, set out below is the background to the letter we sent to the SSR2 Review Team. We hope that this background is helpful. The Stability, Security, and Resilience Review now underway (SSR2) is intended to provide critical input needed to evaluate ICANN’s progress in fulfilling its core mission. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the composition of the review team is to be determined by the community through its Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. The ICANN Board takes seriously its responsibility to safeguard the integrity of this process and the independence of the review as well as to ensure that ICANN resources are deployed efficiently and effectively. In June, the ICANN Board wrote to the SSR2 team to express concern about the adequacy of the SSR2 work plan, terms of reference, and proposed scope. We heard some of these same concerns from members of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee in late September, and the SSAC formally advised the Board about its concerns on October 4. The Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) forwarded this letter to SO/AC chairs on the same date, and indicated that it would be providing recommendations to the Board and discussing the concerns with SO/AC chairs in Abu Dhabi. On October 3, the Board wrote once again to the SSR2 team concerning its Subgroup 2 audit plan, which proposed to audit ICANN’s internal security policies and procedures. We acknowledged that a general understanding of internal security at ICANN was relevant to the work of SSR2, but considered that an audit exceeded the scope of the review. The SSR2 team responded on 6 October. Throughout October, the Board considered the SSAC’s advice and received recommendations from the OEC. On October 27, as we gathered here in Abu Dhabi, members of the Board again met with SO/AC Chairs to convey the Board’s view that the SSR2 Review should be paused until the SOs and ACs had an opportunity to consider, in light of the expressed concerns, whether adjustments are needed to achieve the purpose of the review. We realise that our message to the gathered chairs may not have been clear. The Board has not usurped the community’s authority with respect to this review. Rather, we are asking the SOs and ACs to consider the concerns we have heard and determine whether or not adjustments are needed. We believe that a temporary pause in the SSR2 work while this consideration is under way is a sensible approach designed to ensure stakeholders can reach a common understanding on the appropriate scope and work plan, which will ensure the efficient use of ICANN’s resources as the review continues to fulfill its mission. We stand ready to assist the SOs and ACs in any way so that stakeholders can resume the important work of the SSR review as soon as they are ready. Regards, Chris Disspain _______________________________________________ icann-board mailing list icann-board(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board

1 0

CCWG Internet Governance Report for Abu Dhabi Meeting
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Oct. 29, 2017

Oct. 29, 2017

Dear colleagues, the ALAC will meet with the ccNSO later today. One of the topics of discussion will be the CCWG Internet Governance. In advance of this meeting, please be so kind to find attached, copies in Docx & PDF of the CCWG Internet Governance activity report. The ccNSO also has a copy of this report in their possession. I will be present to answer any questions. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Co-Chair, CCWG Internet Governance

2 1

Briefing note: Use of gTLD Auction Proceeds for ICANN Reserve
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

This is a briefing note in preparation for the discussion in AbuDhabi current scheduled for 9:30 am, local time, on Sunday. As is common for non-profit organizations, and particularly ones where their income or expenses might be subject to unexpected fluctuations, ICANN maintains a "Reserve Fund" to allow it to cover unexpected expenses or below expectations income. Currently the target for the fund is one year's regular expenses, but due to unexpected expenses (primarily associated with the IANA transition and accountability exercise), it is below that. There is an open Public Comment where you can find out more about the fund - https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB. It has been suggested that some portion of the proceeds of the new gTLD Auctions (currently about $235m, although there is some chance it could be as low as $105m) be used to help build back the reserve. Excluding this possibility, the target use of the Auction Funds will be projects that are aligned with ICANN's mission and enhance the Internet (wording still under debate). This brief discussion will be to solicit thoughts on whether this would be a good idea or not. Alan

7 11

NomCom selection of ALAC Members
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

The NomCom selects five ALAC members and over the years, some have done well and others not. The documentation used in the last year is attached. I am asking whether there is still time to revise it for the coming year. I suspect that if the answer is yes, time will be tight. I am interested in putting together a very small drafting team to consider such revisions. Alan

4 3

Fwd: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

FYI, Alan >To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on >Geographic Names at the Top-Level >Cc: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan ><steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com" ><jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" ><gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, >Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > >It has been brought to my attention that the ALAC never got back to >the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP leadership and staff on >confirmation of the ALAC participation in this Work Track. > >At its monthly meeting of 26 September 2017, the ALAC decided that >it would be formally participating in Work Track 5 on geonames at >the top level. The ALAC reserves the right to consider the >ratification of the WT5 outcomes. Should the ALAC not fully ratify >the outcomes, it will provide a statement which will be included in >any final report and recommendations of the PDP. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC > >At 25/09/2017 09:57 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>I am pleased to report that the ALAC has selected Christopher >>Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> to be the ALAC-Appointed >>Co-Leader of the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working >>Group WT5 on geonames at the top level. >> >>This appointment notwithstanding, the ALAC is meeting tomorrow to >>decide what, if any, formal conditions we are placing on our full >>participation in WT5. >> >>Regards, Alan Greenberg >>Chair, ALAC >> >> >>At 01/08/2017 08:37 PM, Terri Agnew wrote: >>>** Sending on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG co-chairs >>> >>>Dear Alan, >>> >>>On behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we write >>>to you in your capacity as chair of ALAC. This email is in regards >>>to the topic of geographic names at the top-level, recently >>>discussed during the cross community sessions at ICANN59. In >>>addition, we want to state our agreement with the GAC which in its >>>Communique for ICANN59 stated that "any further process of policy >>>review and development should: (a) continue to allow all >>>stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account >>>the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; >>>and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals >>>for future arrangements" in dealing with Geographic Names as >>>Top-Level Domains. >>> >>>Pursuant to those discussions and the recommendations provided by >>>the GAC, we are establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) within the >>>GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. This new >>>WT5 will focus exclusively on geographic names at the >>>top-level. In order to promote broad participation from across >>>the community, we are seeking to establish a shared leadership >>>model in WT5. We are requesting that one representative from each >>>of the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO be nominated (through whatever >>>mechanism is deemed appropriate by each group) to serve as a >>>co-leader of WT5 by August 18, 2017. >>> >>>We are aware that some members of the community are concerned >>>about this topic being addressed under the auspices of a GNSO PDP >>>WG. That said, we are also aware of recommendations from the >>>recently concluded CCWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names >>>that the work should be consolidated into a single community-wide >>>initiative moving forward as opposed to having each SO and AC >>>working on recommendations independently. >>> >>>As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 >>>operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring >>>that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on >>>any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. While we believe >>>that ultimately, it will be up to WT5 itself to draft the terms of >>>reference for WT5 and determine its structure and operating >>>procedures, we recommend that the co-leaders discuss these issues >>>with the PDP co-chairs and staff first in order to frame the >>>issues and structure for the group. Setting up this arrangement >>>within the GNSO PDP seems to strike a balance between establishing >>>an inclusive and collaborative structure while maintaining the >>>ability to develop policy as determined by ICANN's Bylaws. After >>>the co-leaders are appointed and have had a chance to discuss >>>plans, we will issue a call to each of the SOs and ACs seeking >>>volunteers from the community to participate in WT5. >>> >>>We hope that you support our proposed multi-stakeholder approach >>>to work with the community in addressing a topic that is clearly >>>of great importance to many. We hope to be able to organize an >>>introductory meeting the first week of September 2017, in order to >>>allow the co-leaders to come to agreement on WT5's draft terms of >>>reference . Finally, while we as co-chairs of the overall PDP WG >>>support WT5's independence, we nevertheless remain available to >>>facilitate and provide assistance to the co-leaders as the need or >>>desire arises. >>> >>>If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Briefing note: Use of gTLD Auction Proceeds for ICANN Reserve
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 26, 2017

Oct. 26, 2017

Thanks Seun. There is no question of the "legality" of ICANN using the auction find to top up the reset. Or at least I have never heard mention of such a concern. Whether operating costs are reasonable and justified is an ongoing issue. It might be addressed in the current public comment, or in the one to be opened on the FY19 Plan and Budget. Alan On October 25, 2017 4:49:51 AM GMT+01:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello Alan, On the assumption that ICANN can legally use part of the proceeds to fund reserve, I'd be also can live with up to a 20% of whatever is the accessible amount of the AP. However on a related note, I do personally think ICANN operating cost is quite on the high side in the first place and while effort is being made to get a 1 year reserve, i will be interested to know how much effort the Board is putting on 2 specific items: 1. Avoid continuous increase on the operating cost which could then make a year target meaningless. 2. Minimize operating cost as much as possible (of course without affecting the SO/AC part of things) so a 1 year reserve could end up sufficient for many more months when the need arises. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 25, 2017 2:07 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: This is a briefing note in preparation for the discussion in AbuDhabi current scheduled for 9:30 am, local time, on Sunday. As is common for non-profit organizations, and particularly ones where their income or expenses might be subject to unexpected fluctuations, ICANN maintains a "Reserve Fund" to allow it to cover unexpected expenses or below expectations income. Currently the target for the fund is one year's regular expenses, but due to unexpected expenses (primarily associated with the IANA transition and accountability exercise), it is below that. There is an open Public Comment where you can find out more about the fund - <https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB>https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB. It has been suggested that some portion of the proceeds of the new gTLD Auctions (currently about $235m, although there is some chance it could be as low as $105m) be used to help build back the reserve. Excluding this possibility, the target use of the Auction Funds will be projects that are aligned with ICANN's mission and enhance the Internet (wording still under debate). This brief discussion will be to solicit thoughts on whether this would be a good idea or not. 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…

6 7