February 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Contractual Compliance & Consumer Safeguards
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 10, 2017

March 10, 2017

Hello, ALAC and Regional Leaders: Jamie Hedlund just posted a blog. Have a look as preparation for your engagement with him in Copenhagen. Some new ideas in there focused on collaboration with community. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/six-weeks-in-contractual-compliance-and-con… Best regards, Rinalia

3 4

cNSO-SSAC issue
by Maureen Hilyard March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Background notes for your information - for the ALAC meeting Maureen

6 6

Re: [ALAC] ccNSO Report on Confusing Similarity for TLD Strings
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 2017

I did ask that such a discussion take place, twice I think. But I am not aware of it happening. I am adding the item to the Agenda of the ALAC meeting in 9 hours. Alan At 27/02/2017 06:45 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear ALAC, > >Re: ALAC's position on the ccNSO report on confusing similarity for >TLD strings. > >There will be a board discussion on this topic soon. > >As I recall, the ALAC endorsed the report and then saw the report >issued by the SSAC regarding concerns over the EPSRP. I believe >there was some discussion about the ALAC position, on whether it should change. > >What is the status of the ALAC position on the ccNSO Report and the EPSRP now? > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:CFbwly4ZnEs2BzmbXI/1HxQwsiGdwjiQa4o3AGaw657GzRmmklnSV/P1k4FVSp92eDcvzUO0L2apEyj9voB1wirpeiJq1xAlnMLTK24INwHUoYW8+9XcIojfZNq1Z6Ac/Nk0L/+ujGV50iwiCNIr9Q== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >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

ALT Member from EU
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

The call for nominations for the EU ALAC Leadership Team Member from EU closed on Friday with just one nomination - Andrei Kolesnikov. Andrei has accepted the nomination. As per ALAC Rules of Procedure 16,3, Andre Kolesnikov is accordingly declared the winner by acclamation. His term starts immediately and runs through to the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in November of this year. Congratulations to Andrei Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

4 3

ccNSO Report on Confusing Similarity for TLD Strings
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Dear ALAC, Re: ALAC's position on the ccNSO report on confusing similarity for TLD strings. There will be a board discussion on this topic soon. As I recall, the ALAC endorsed the report and then saw the report issued by the SSAC regarding concerns over the EPSRP. I believe there was some discussion about the ALAC position, on whether it should change. What is the status of the ALAC position on the ccNSO Report and the EPSRP now? Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Thank you ALN for your participation in this selection process.
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

We hope AT Large and ALAC community will continue to count on your relevant participation and hard work. kisses 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. HAPPY 2017!

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] Replacement Elector For Leon Sánchez
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

I add my support for Fatima to replace Leon as elector for the Board member election. Notwithstanding my support here, the rule that makes the RALO the determining voice for the vote of a NomCom appointed ALAC member is hopelessly flawed. Maybe it was unintentional but this impugns the independence of the member. The unfettered independence of the NomCom appointed ALAC member is a major objective of that process and is meant to insulate that person from regional passions. That independence is especially valuable when that is an elector for the Board member. should not be conscripted. -Carlton Samuels ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= >

6 7

Call for Nominations - ALT Member from EU
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

As you know, Veronica Cretu has resigned her position on the ALAC and EURALO has now announced that her position is being filled by Bastiaan Goslings. Veronica was also the EU member of the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT). At the time of her resignation, it was agreed that we would not refill her ALT position until we had the full complement of three EU ALAC Members who are eligible to fill this position. As per to the ALAC Rules of Procedure (http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09) 17.4.2, we are obliged to formally open a Call For Nominations for this vacancy. I have been informed that the three ALAC Members have already come to an agreement as to who will sit on the ALT. Accordingly, I am opening a Call for Nominations for the EU ALT seat. Eligible candidates are Sébastien Bachollet, Bastiaan Goslings and Andrei Kolesnikov. Only ALAC Members are eligible to make nominations. The Call for Nominations will end on Friday, 24 February 2017 at 23:59 UTC. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

4 4

Congratulations
by Tijani BEN JEMAA Feb. 24, 2017

Feb. 24, 2017

Dear all, This is to let you know that the former ALAC member from AFRALO Hadja Ouatara Sanoun heve just been appointed Minister of the Digital Economy Development and Posts in Burkina Faso. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 12

CCWG Auction Proceeds
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

Following a Consensus Call of the ALAC, the following are endorsed as Members representing the ALA on the CCWG Auction Proceeds: AF: Seun Ojedeji AP: Maureen Hilyard EU: Sébastien Bachollet LAC: Vanda Scartezini NA: Alan Greenberg Alan

1 0

Invitation for the NOMCOM Public Meeting in Copenhagen
by Eduardo Diaz Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

See attached: -ed

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-LT] DOODLE / ICANN58 - GAC & ALT Leadership Prep call
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Hi Gisella IN CPH the GAC is also working on a draft survey to do with Underserved regions, and it would be good to hear about this. Maureen On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached the Doodle poll to schedule the *ICANN58 Prep call > between the GAC and ALAC Leadership Teams* in preparation for the F2F > meeting in Copenhagen on *Tuesday 14 March from 17:00-18:00 in Hall A2*. > > > > http://doodle.com/poll/b325k34u52f6f5x5 > > > > One of the agenda items already suggested is as follows: > > Geographic names as gTLD's: discussing the work being done by the GAC to > develop best practices on geographic names in possible future new gTLD > rounds. > > > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Gisella > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom > >

1 0

Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please
by Judith Hellerstein Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

4 3

Was: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2017

Feb. 20, 2017

[I've moved this discussion to the ALAC list.] Yes, we can put it on the agenda if there is a general wish. And of course be cursed because we choose to talk about process... This is definitely not the first time we have had the discussion, and it is not still with us because we chose to drop it, but it a really difficult one. We are continuously torn between too wide a distribution of something that in truth, not many want to receive, and the need to be open, transparent and seeking input from all and sundry. As a small example, our rules require that messages related to ALAC officer selections go to ALAC-Announce, a list including all ALS representatives, a host of other people who have self-subscribed and probably other who I am not aware of. The messages also got to the ALAC list. None of the people on the Announce list (who are not also on the ALAC list) can nominate or vote in the selection. But we send it out because we are open and transparent. If we didn't, we would no doubt be accused of working under a dark, secretive shroud. The problem seems to have arisen at this point because of the coincidence of two events: 1. The distribution of a pointer to Board Candidate Q&A responses sent by staff to the RALO lists, the At-Large list and the ALAC-Announce list causing many people to get three copies. 2. The recent completion of a project to collect accurate e-mail addresses for ALS primary and secondary contacts, resulting in all of those who were "new" to us being subscribed to various lists, apparently (this I am not sure of) without informing them that it was happening and why. Several years ago I did a massive correlation of our various lists to try to see if any lists were largely subsets or supersets of others to eliminate multiple messages being received. The summary result was that there was no pattern. There are people on the RALO lists who were not on the At-Large list, and there were people on the At-Large list who were not on any RALO list. Similarly for the ALAC-Announce list. I could go on, but you probably get the picture. Alan At 19/02/2017 02:34 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: >Folks > >A great discussion on this list - making some really important >points. So instead of letting the matter drop (as is so often the >case), make this an item for discussion at CPH - and allow plenty of >time. How do we communicate, can we do better and how. > >So maybe review what some of us know - what are the lists, how are >they used (or not), when people unsubscribe, do we try to find out >why, is there a better way to communicate - by topic? And Dev, >Garth, Seun and everyone - could there be a page or so - to that >list and staff, saying this is a better way and this is how to do it. > >We are starting the Review comments - and how we communicate (and >how we could do it better) is clearly something that should be one >of the top items on that agenda. So let's actually make our >communications structures better rather than just complain > >Thanks everyone > >Holly >On 20 Feb 2017, at 4:57 am, Roberto Gaetano ><<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Oh good, then we can agree. >>R >> >> >>Da: <mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com >>[<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>mailto:gbruen@knujon.com] >>Inviato: domenica 19 febbraio 2017 18:55 >>A: Roberto Gaetano >>Cc: <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Oggetto: Re: R: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please >> >><< OTOH, your point is to replace email with something different, I >>am strongly against.>> >> >>Hardly Roberto, I want people to have CHOICE and the system to be >>flexible. Have a web interface that allows people to subscribe to >>the issue they are concerned about and when they respond via email >>to a thread it is placed somewhere useful within the interface so >>people who do NOT use the email list can still interact with you. >>The overlay of a properly configured interface would also allow >>people to use the system in a LOCAL language if they choose. >> >> >>On 2/19/17 12:46 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >>Garth, >>I am not arguing on the fact that there are other solutions, what I >>reacted was to the idea of dropping the email. >>What is *better* or *much better* is really a matter of different >>taste, connectivity conditions (bandwidth, cost, etc.), way to use >>(always online or not), and more. >>What is good for some, is bad for other. >>If your point is that ICANN should explore alternatives and add >>them to the offer they give to the stakeholders, I am with you. >>If, OTOH, your point is to replace email with something different, >>I am strongly against. >>Cheers, >>Roberto >> >> >>Da: <mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com >>[<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>mailto:gbruen@knujon.com] >>Inviato: domenica 19 febbraio 2017 18:24 >>A: Roberto Gaetano >>Cc: <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please >> >>Roberto, >> >>There is a much better way. Web technology has evolved >>considerably, It is entirely possible to have a single interface >>where all At-Large participants can review current issues and >>collaborate in queues and streams. Instead of cobbling together a >>bunch of disparate systems for placing and tracking At-Large work, >>can we put all the tools in one place like every other effective >>organization has done. We're not using anything even close to >>workflow, none of the At-Large "Stuff" is results or goal driven. >>Log into this for that, log into this other thing for something >>else. This is a case study in driving our work into the ground. >> >>-Garth >> >> >>On 2/19/17 11:35 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >>To me, it works well - or at least better than some alternatives. >>But maybe there other ways that I don't know. >>Anyway, please do not unsubscribe me :) >>R >> >>Sent from my iPad >> >> >>On 19 Feb 2017, at 17:13, >>"<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com" >><<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: >>Seun, there are always too many emails, none channeled to specific >>interests or needs. This decades-old "system" of collaboration and >>information flow is one of the great failures of ICANN to engage >>with the community. Why would anyone want to stay engaged? >> >> >> >>On 2/19/17 10:46 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>Hello, >> >>The URL to unsubscribe is in the footer: >> >><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >>On that note, I wonder why a few people are unsubscribing? Are the >>mails too much already ;-) >> >>Regards >>Sent from my LG G4 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >>On Feb 19, 2017 16:38, "Alexander Forsyth" >><<mailto:aforsyth.pdp@gmail.com>aforsyth.pdp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Thank you. >> >>Alexander Forsyth >><https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/d0c0b46552958ac65c076711d0d4ddd3caa71b4e?ur…>www.campominado.org >>www.alexanderforsyth.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>At-Large mailing list >><mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >>At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org/>http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>At-Large mailing list >> >><mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >> >> >>At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org/>http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Garth Bruen >> >><mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com >> >> >> >>617-947-3805 >> >>http://www.knujon.com >> >>ICANN At-Large Advisory Council >> >>Author: WHOIS Running the Internet >> >><http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html>http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html >>_______________________________________________ >>At-Large mailing list >><mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >>At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org/>http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Garth Bruen >> >><mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com >> >> >> >>617-947-3805 >> >>http://www.knujon.com >> >>ICANN At-Large Advisory Council >> >>Author: WHOIS Running the Internet >> >><http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html>http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Garth Bruen >> >><mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com >> >> >> >>617-947-3805 >> >>http://www.knujon.com >> >>ICANN At-Large Advisory Council >> >>Author: WHOIS Running the Internet >> >><http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html>http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html_________… >>At-Large mailing list >><mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >>At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org/>http://atlarge.icann.org > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:CR/BPNVTrAfzmM68kQQXnk2O1lzsYt865O5AvDu1isILQZEk58T15ssWC5Sv+onrLpYJv+V/yBsUTMXboMrkjTu6Qbgo5hudRMImGTJTx7dqK57RfdKHW66XYXJUL/dgg0ISfgZ4MmnXAcMr6SoTImZSYbNxA3hm3ej4hzwz9QwEUXI5HCFmkem1oBbs062IkLGkrzh2TXvxAFmoux10lXnZSfN44zSF5P/u/mtVS3p3LkuNo+qnWAc/Te7EirwQm0a2pZq/Ls0lTWXS8MuBH0/gUu/eQRlseU/L9QrSEQDzJQVifnW4qZt/SwDoI+mnC/Ac+GIxg2iQfOEFYupuzfdAxIP/cHq/YM3/aWkICDa0uXOb1XUmzketL7evNG1sEwUPqKfLk27jXOzwlPqX8yZBEJwsG9BcTbXdfjTWE4HY0OMxdkUz5+puJc3yZoS/ >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please
by Gbruen Feb. 19, 2017

Feb. 19, 2017

1 0

Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 19, 2017

Feb. 19, 2017

This is an interesting situation. First of all most organisations place a statement along with the link about wanting to unsubscribe from a mailing list, but ICANN expects people to just know how to do this? Secondly, the unsubscribe requests are coming at a time when we are discussing member engagement with ICANN and people are starting to hear about the issues. It is strange that when individual members could be having a say about an important issue that actually involves them, rather than having their say, their preferred response is to unsubscribe? ITEMS must have got that wrong somehow (funny that!) And finally, why does the whole of At-Large get the unsubscribe request? It could start an avalanche of requests now that they are better informed of the process. :) And are staff keeping analytics on these unsubscribers? The latest one was from the UN (?) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "gbruen(a)knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> Date: 19/02/2017 6:13 am Subject: Re: [At-Large] Unsubscribe me please To: <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Seun, there are always too many emails, none channeled to specific > interests or needs. This decades-old "system" of collaboration and > information flow is one of the great failures of ICANN to engage with the > community. Why would anyone want to stay engaged? > > > > On 2/19/17 10:46 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello, > > The URL to unsubscribe is in the footer: > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > On that note, I wonder why a few people are unsubscribing? Are the mails > too much already ;-) > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On Feb 19, 2017 16:38, "Alexander Forsyth" <aforsyth.pdp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you. >> >> Alexander Forsyth >> www.campominado.org >> <https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/d0c0b46552958ac65c076711d0d4ddd3caa71b4e?ur…> >> www.alexanderforsyth.com >> <https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/8a984b2a36df1d485c9aa65deaa140e357963ab3?ur…> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > -- > Garth Bruengbruen(a)knujon.com > 617-947-3805 <(617)%20947-3805>http://www.knujon.com > ICANN At-Large Advisory Council > Author: WHOIS Running the Internethttp://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 1

Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 16, 2017

Feb. 16, 2017

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones : - it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one: - ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes. So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model. The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS. The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community. --- Dev Anand

7 16

.africa news
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 15, 2017

Feb. 15, 2017

.africa delegated and in the root! Best regards, Rinalia

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 15, 2017

Feb. 15, 2017

If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it will need to be with careful planning and attention to details. One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details" that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize and track "active" individuals. In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them: - Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country? This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs to be pretty bullet-proof. Alan At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM >model proposed in the At-Large Review > >My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones : > >- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of >community with replacement >of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such >individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep >themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in >GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from >developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. >- given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we >would be no different from such random individuals >- it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN >activities from end user interests >- a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 >individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in >the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. >- Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to >other groups is not sensible > >There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better >At-Large model than the EMM one: > >- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in >concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. >- each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the >interests of end users. >- ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do >certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F >awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to >provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and >the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. >- ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to >facilitate online discussions. >- Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the >country, marketing/promoting is >greatly simplified and easier to explain. >- Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to >establish with only a few individuals from a country without the >challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes. > >So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country >in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model. > >The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the >region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO >work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs >with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with >analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS. > >The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large >chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and >help promote and grow the At-Large Community. > > >--- >Dev Anand >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJPagXmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
by Seun Ojedeji Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

+1 to the 3 points listed as well. However, this effort already started both at RALO and ALAC level (before the current review). I think one of the challenge with a volunteer community is the burnout tendency, hence that effort may seem slow, but there is also a possibility that if we are able to accelerate the efforts, it will ultimately reduce burnout rate. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Feb 14, 2017 04:32, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: > John, > > indeed the size of the organizations varies widely. That is one of the > facts that guided the design. > > Some organizations may claim to have 150,000 members and others 50. The > Web-of-trust concept applies first to obtain some certainty about the > validity of these claims. The vetting process allows for that too. And you > more or less know, at least within the region of the RALO, whom you are > actually speaking with. > > Another significant point against Dev's and in general "ICANN chapter" > designs is that ALSs are diverse in another sense: functional diversity. > Some would be primarily engineering or technical organizations (though in > practice most of these abhor the At Large), others are lawyers' > associations, others are primarily oriented to the defense of consumer or > other rights, etc. This is one of the design principles that has more or > less panned out. > > We could do much better if we assessed ALSes for 1. fit under ICANN's > mission, 2. ability to represent or transmit users concerns, 3. relevant > activity - and repeat this assessment periodically. The salutary effects of > this practice would reverse much of what the ITEMS study correctly calls a > problem. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > <+52%2055%204144%204475> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/ > 22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ > at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de John Laprise [ > jlaprise(a)gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* lunes, 13 de febrero de 2017 14:47 > *Hasta:* 'ALAC Working List'; 'At-Large Worldwide' > *Asunto:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM > proposed in the At-Large Review > > I think we’re missing a point that the report inadvertently revealed and > which it is trying to indirectly address. > > > > The RALOs are all very, very different. Size, state of the Internet, and > concerns of the region, not to mention the governments that tend to be > prevalent. Creating a one size fits all type of RALO will be hard. If we > seek to restructure the concept of RALOs, the new structure has to address > the diverse ecosystems that exist within these geographical areas. > > > > Best regards, > > > > John Laprise, Ph.D. > > Consulting Scholar > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ > > > > > > > > *From:* at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@ > atlarge-lists.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Javier Rua > *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 2:31 PM > *To:* John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> > *Cc:* ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large > Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM > proposed in the At-Large Review > > > > Two sovereign states. "A country may be an independent sovereign state or > one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly > sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets > of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct > political characteristics." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country > > Javier Rúa-Jovet > > > > +1-787-396-6511 <+1%20787-396-6511> > > twitter: @javrua > > skype: javier.rua1 > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua > > > > > On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > There are 8 territories in NA region > > > These are countries: > > > * Canada > > * United States > > > These are US territories whcih for historical reasons have ISO 3166 codes: > > > * American Samoa > > * Guam > > * Northern Mariana Islands > > * Puerto Rico > > * United States Minor Outlying Islands > > * Virgin Islands, U.S. > > > The minor outlying islands are uninahbited, the rest other than Puerto > Rico are tiny with a combined population less than Wyoming, the smallest US > state. > > Really, there are two countries in the NA region, the US and Canada. It > is vanishingly unlikely there will ever be an ALS from any US territory > other than Puerto Rico because they are so small. > > Canada also has three thinly populated territories but since they are > contiguous with the rest of Canada, ISO 3166 never noticed them. > > Canada is divided into provinces and the US into states, but in both > countries the large provinces and states are vastly larger than the > smallest ones so they're not a very good way to subdivide, either. > > We now return you to whatever we were talking about before. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

+1 On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Alejandro and with the three points of his propose. They are > a good global solution for to improve the funcionality of ALs, and resolve > the problems ITEMS saw. > > Regards > > Aída Noblia > > > 2017-02-14 0:31 GMT-03:00 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan(a)unam.mx>: > >> John, >> >> indeed the size of the organizations varies widely. That is one of the >> facts that guided the design. >> >> Some organizations may claim to have 150,000 members and others 50. The >> Web-of-trust concept applies first to obtain some certainty about the >> validity of these claims. The vetting process allows for that too. And you >> more or less know, at least within the region of the RALO, whom you are >> actually speaking with. >> >> Another significant point against Dev's and in general "ICANN chapter" >> designs is that ALSs are diverse in another sense: functional diversity. >> Some would be primarily engineering or technical organizations (though in >> practice most of these abhor the At Large), others are lawyers' >> associations, others are primarily oriented to the defense of consumer or >> other rights, etc. This is one of the design principles that has more or >> less panned out. >> >> We could do much better if we assessed ALSes for 1. fit under ICANN's >> mission, 2. ability to represent or transmit users concerns, 3. relevant >> activity - and repeat this assessment periodically. The salutary effects of >> this practice would reverse much of what the ITEMS study correctly calls a >> problem. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> <+52%2055%204144%204475> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/ >> 22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> ------------------------------ >> *Desde:* at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ >> at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de John Laprise [ >> jlaprise(a)gmail.com] >> *Enviado el:* lunes, 13 de febrero de 2017 14:47 >> *Hasta:* 'ALAC Working List'; 'At-Large Worldwide' >> *Asunto:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM >> proposed in the At-Large Review >> >> I think we’re missing a point that the report inadvertently revealed and >> which it is trying to indirectly address. >> >> >> >> The RALOs are all very, very different. Size, state of the Internet, and >> concerns of the region, not to mention the governments that tend to be >> prevalent. Creating a one size fits all type of RALO will be hard. If we >> seek to restructure the concept of RALOs, the new structure has to address >> the diverse ecosystems that exist within these geographical areas. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> John Laprise, Ph.D. >> >> Consulting Scholar >> >> >> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: >> at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Javier Rua >> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 2:31 PM >> *To:* John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >> *Cc:* ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large >> Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM >> proposed in the At-Large Review >> >> >> >> Two sovereign states. "A country may be an independent sovereign state >> or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly >> sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets >> of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct >> political characteristics." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country >> >> Javier Rúa-Jovet >> >> >> >> +1-787-396-6511 <+1%20787-396-6511> >> >> twitter: @javrua >> >> skype: javier.rua1 >> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> >> There are 8 territories in NA region >> >> >> These are countries: >> >> >> * Canada >> >> * United States >> >> >> These are US territories whcih for historical reasons have ISO 3166 codes: >> >> >> * American Samoa >> >> * Guam >> >> * Northern Mariana Islands >> >> * Puerto Rico >> >> * United States Minor Outlying Islands >> >> * Virgin Islands, U.S. >> >> >> The minor outlying islands are uninahbited, the rest other than Puerto >> Rico are tiny with a combined population less than Wyoming, the smallest US >> state. >> >> Really, there are two countries in the NA region, the US and Canada. It >> is vanishingly unlikely there will ever be an ALS from any US territory >> other than Puerto Rico because they are so small. >> >> Canada also has three thinly populated territories but since they are >> contiguous with the rest of Canada, ISO 3166 never noticed them. >> >> Canada is divided into provinces and the US into states, but in both >> countries the large provinces and states are vastly larger than the >> smallest ones so they're not a very good way to subdivide, either. >> >> We now return you to whatever we were talking about before. >> >> R's, >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Aida Noblia > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
by Javier Rua Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

Two sovereign states. "A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> There are 8 territories in NA region > > These are countries: > >> * Canada >> * United States > > These are US territories whcih for historical reasons have ISO 3166 codes: > >> * American Samoa >> * Guam >> * Northern Mariana Islands >> * Puerto Rico >> * United States Minor Outlying Islands >> * Virgin Islands, U.S. > > The minor outlying islands are uninahbited, the rest other than Puerto Rico are tiny with a combined population less than Wyoming, the smallest US state. > > Really, there are two countries in the NA region, the US and Canada. It is vanishingly unlikely there will ever be an ALS from any US territory other than Puerto Rico because they are so small. > > Canada also has three thinly populated territories but since they are contiguous with the rest of Canada, ISO 3166 never noticed them. > > Canada is divided into provinces and the US into states, but in both countries the large provinces and states are vastly larger than the smallest ones so they're not a very good way to subdivide, either. > > We now return you to whatever we were talking about before. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Replacement Electors
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

The restriction of a candidate not voting in the election is a requirement from the ICANN Bylaws. That is not likely to change. The process to allow a RALO to name a replacement elector is in the ALAC RoP. The rules were carefully crafted so as to not negatively impact a NomCom appointed ALAC member if they chose to run for the Board seat - in the absence of such a rule, the vote would simply be uncast. If the ALAC so wishes, that can be changed at some point in the future, but this current selection is being run under the current RoP. The replacement elector is bound by the same rules as other ALAC members. They MUST NOT cast a directed vote but must be what the elector (and I quote RoP 19.10.4) "believes to be in the best interests of At-Large, the ALAC and ICANN". What is listed and what is not listed here was deliberately crafted. Alan At 10/02/2017 02:54 PM, you wrote: >Hello, > >Actually I do think the simple fix is to allow any nominee to be >able to cast his/her vote if the nominee happen to be an elector. I >don't see any major reason why we restrict them in the first place >as their "singular" vote wouldn't get them elected. > >I was able to cast my vote as member of AFRINIC for the election >that placed me on the Board and ofcourse my vote wasn't the deciding >factor(it could have been as well). > >On that note, we may perhaps just put a condition that the nominee >vote cannot break a tie(if that happens), even I still don't think >we need to put any restriction. > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Feb 10, 2017 17:08, "Carlton Samuels" ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I add my support for Fatima to replace Leon as elector for the Board >member election. > >Notwithstanding my support here, the rule that makes the RALO the >determining voice for the vote of a NomCom appointed ALAC member is >hopelessly flawed. > >Maybe it was unintentional but this impugns the independence of the >member. The unfettered independence of the NomCom appointed ALAC >member is a major objective of that process and is meant to insulate >that person from regional passions. That independence is especially >valuable when that is an elector for the Board member. should not be >conscripted. > >-Carlton Samuels > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:4oW8EnYpNWQzsFt5ID1twH7YGMrxV1DLkJKr8HfWuHFb06B3hVz0hOe6O64J5+vGSeeOg8QOfQTgAbiz/851SjFE/mZKgiUvqOIPbgB7saFztkgnZr3hY/dVXCeSncWz68pbQg3W7jed1wWdaDRuuA== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >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…

4 3

CEO Report to the Board
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

CEO and Management Report to the Board below. Enjoy it! :) https://www.icann.org/presidents-corner Best regards, Rinalia

2 2

Re: [ALAC] .africa news
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 10, 2017

Feb. 10, 2017

If I understand correctly, the denial of the injunction allows ICANN to proceed with delegation. However the basic lawsuit is still pending. The denial of the injunction does lower the probability that the lawsuit will succeed though. Presumably if the lawsuit ultimately was won by dotconnectafrica, the TLD would then have to be redelegated to them (if all appeals are exhausted). Is that your understanding as well Rinalia? Alan At 10/02/2017 02:58 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2017-02-09-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2017-02-09-en. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia

2 1