February 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Digest, Vol 103, Issue 9
by Alfredo Calderon Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Hello Alan: I would like to collaborate on this initiative if you and the team believe I can contribute to enhancing the plan. [image: photo] *Alfredo Calderon* eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo(a)gmail.com | http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212 <#> | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon <http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo> <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52> <http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts> <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon> <http://klout.com/#/acalderon52> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon> Get a signature like this: Click here! <http://ws-promos.appspot.com/r?rdata=eyJydXJsIjogImh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2lzZXN0YW…> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:00 AM, <alac-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: > Send ALAC mailing list submissions to > alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > alac-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > alac-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ALAC digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: MOVING FORWARD: ALS Expectations Plan (Javier Rua) > 2. Re: MOVING FORWARD: ALS Expectations Plan (Tijani BEN JEMAA) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 06:15:29 -0400 > From: Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com> > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [ALAC] MOVING FORWARD: ALS Expectations Plan > Message-ID: <6F85C695-865E-4ED2-BB09-5BEA71D8DD5A(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Please add me Alan > > Javier R?a-Jovet > > +1-787-396-6511 > twitter: @javrua > skype: javier.rua1 > https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua > > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 7:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > wrote: > > > > In Hyderabad the ALAC approved the attached document as the basis for > moving forward, and decided to convene a small group to refine it. I know > that Tijani agreed to participate as well as at least one other person. > > > > Given that this will form the core of our alternative to the ITEMS > Empowered Membership Model, we need to quickly convert this concept into a > specific plan. > > > > As a first step, please let me know if you want to participate in this. > Any plan will be brought back to the ALAC, but we need to flesh it out > quickly to have credibility in replying to the At-Large Review draft report. > > > > Those who volunteer should start making notes on exactly how they want a > plan fleshed out so we can draft a document for ALAC and RALO Leadership > discussion and ALAC approval. > > > > I hope to convene the first meeting next week. > > > > Alan > > <ALS-Analysis-Proposal-v03.pdf> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

NARALO ALS Decertification and under Warning Letters
by Glenn McKnight Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Greetings We have a request for the MARCH Meeting the decertification of two NARALO ALS's N-CAP operated by Darlene Thompson and Association for Community Networking (AFCN) operated by Michael Miranda were requested months ago to proceed with the Decertification process Secondly We are informing ALAC that we have also two inactive ALS's and we have sent them both letters to mobilize Article 16, and they have been Inactive mode for a year They have not attended meetings or participated in policy statements or comments. They are - Open Media : On August 24th 2016 - VIBUG - Dec 2016 Thanks Glenn . Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

2 1

Re: [ALAC] MOVING FORWARD: ALS Expectations Plan
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 8, 2017

Feb. 8, 2017

Eduardo, I disagree. This paper was written long and approved by the ALAC before ITEMS proposed the EMM, and it does not create a new class of member. It will simply reach out and make contact with the members of the ALSes - a resource that we have always implied are out there, but have not attempted to interact with. We have hoped that the ALAS would do it without us getting involved, but that has not happened in the general case. So it does not promote the EMM, but rather provides an alternative methodology for attracting more involved users. And since it is an alternative, we need to demonstrate that it is something we are seriously working on. Regarding the review, we will address all of the recommendations. I look forward to your thoughts on how to flesh out and implement this proposal. Alan At 07/02/2017 06:29 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >Alan: > >The second bullet in the Proposal section of the >document just promotes the ITEMS EMM: "Focus >upon the membership of each ALS rather than just >itâs formal representative(s)." Also, the >third bullet in the same section: "Aim to >disseminate appropriate base information on >ICANN and key ICANN issues..." does not add to >the future. I believe that is what Tijani's >Capacity Building Group has been doing all these years. > >Please included me in the group. This document >focus on the EMM only. I understand that there >are a more issues than this alone. Are we aiming >to comment only on this issue or all of them.? > >-ed > > > >On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >In Hyderabad the ALAC approved the attached >document as the basis for moving forward, and >decided to convene a small group to refine it. I >know that Tijani agreed to participate as well as at least one other person. > >Given that this will form the core of our >alternative to the ITEMS Empowered Membership >Model, we need to quickly convert this concept into a specific plan. > >As a first step, please let me know if you want >to participate in this. Any plan will be brought >back to the ALAC, but we need to flesh it out >quickly to have credibility in replying to the At-Large Review draft report. > >Those who volunteer should start making notes on >exactly how they want a plan fleshed out so we >can draft a document for ALAC and RALO Leadership discussion and ALAC approval. > >I hope to convene the first meeting next week. > >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… > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:Smqqpsa+t9ZIhGmgrG5V2hpxK1Y0Z3ABuXRnOL1P5mjDQwo9HjJ3xjoBoMPT+2RhQlgp6ewzOXI+QYwHxUzlsdaZrqc7jSSUO+f3K1qmpJ+DZCOSFs0cBWbfN0qRX8NNByRzwSdkahhz2+Yie1rojQ== >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

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: CCWG Accountability WorkStream 2 Questions on ICANN Jurisdiction
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Roberto Will become worse for while, but we are also seeing huge reaction from inside US, so my expectation will be only mild changes on the Internet, if any ( more probably) , and in the free circulation of people to and from US. I do not believe that jurisdiction of ICANN will affect more than normally happens related to visa issues, other countries do have restrictions too and some are more unpredictable then US. If it will happen any relevant interference on Internet ( $ power will forbid, I believe)then will be time to rethink the jurisdiction. Till then I do not believe in huge impact. My 0,00002 cents 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! On 2/7/17, 12:14 PM, "Roberto Gaetano" <at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Actually, I was thinking in terms of similar lines, but also wondering whether under the Trump administration the jurisdiction issue would not become worse. R. > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Robert Guerra > Inviato: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 15:02 > A: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Cc: ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide > Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] CCWG Accountability WorkStream 2 Questions on > ICANN Jurisdiction > > I would hope that Cuban and Iranian internet users reply to this > questionnaire. > > regards > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra(a)privaterra.org > PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra > > On 7 Feb 2017, at 6:35, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > on the ICANN evolution working group's last call ( > > https://community.icann.org/x/F47RAw ) we had a very healthy > > discussion on the topic of ICANN Jurisdiction which one of the CCWG > > Accountability workstream 2 sub-groups is addressing. The sub-group > > has sent out a short questionnaire to collect input from the > > community. This is attached. > > > > The questions are: > > > > 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase > > domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in > > any way? > > If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or > > incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any > > relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive > > and/or negative effects. > > 2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction* affected any dispute resolution process > > or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? > > If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or > > incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any > > relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive > > and/or negative effects. > > 3. Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of > > experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions > > above? If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links. > > 4. a. Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where > > ICANN has been unable to pursue its Mission because of its > > jurisdiction?* If so, please provide documentation. > > b. Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an > > alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from > > pursuing its Mission? If so, please provide documentation. > > > > Please be so kind to let us know your answers. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Olivier > > (for the At-Large ICANN evolution working group) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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

CCWG Accountability WorkStream 2 Questions on ICANN Jurisdiction
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear colleagues, on the ICANN evolution working group's last call ( https://community.icann.org/x/F47RAw ) we had a very healthy discussion on the topic of ICANN Jurisdiction which one of the CCWG Accountability workstream 2 sub-groups is addressing. The sub-group has sent out a short questionnaire to collect input from the community. This is attached. The questions are: 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. 2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction* affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. 3. Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions above? If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links. 4. a. Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue its Mission because of its jurisdiction?* If so, please provide documentation. b. Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing its Mission? If so, please provide documentation. Please be so kind to let us know your answers. Kindest regards, Olivier (for the At-Large ICANN evolution working group)

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Decision on ATRT3
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

>To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambia <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill ><mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, MSSI >Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ALAC Decision on ATRT3 > >ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Limited Scope of the Third >Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Review > >During the ALAC Monthly Meeting on 20 December 2016, the proposed >limited scope of the ATRT3 Review has been discussed. After >consultation with ALAC Members who have participated in ATRT2, >closely tracked ATRT2, and/or actively engaged in the Cross >Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability >(CCWG-Accountability), the ALAC has reached agreement on the following: > >The ALAC supports the CCWG-Accountability proposal of convening a >narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team as soon as possible, which is >tasked with assessing the implementation of ARTR2 recommendations >only as per the message from Mathieu Weill dated 02 December 2016. >The ALAC also supports the proposal of requesting ICANN Staff to do >a "self-assessment" triage report on ATRT2 recommendations and their >implementation, which will facilitate the completion of the ATRT3 >work in an efficient manner. Should this go forward, the ALAC will >encourage At-Large Community members who participated in previous >ATRT Review Teams to apply for the ATRT3 Review Team and contribute >to its Charter development process. > >Nevertheless, the ALAC stresses that the proposed limited scope of >ATRT3 should be considered exceptional. Future ATRT rounds should >have the original full scope to cover accountability and >transparency topics and make recommendations, as per requirements in >the original Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Reviews. Furthermore, >the fourth ATRT should convene sooner before the maximum five years. > >Lastly, the ALAC is concerned that the evaluation of the overall >composition and balance of stakeholder representation in ICANN's >Multistakeholder Model is long overdue, an issue raised during the >Second At-Large Summit. This review should either be addressed under >ATRT4, or by a special review convened by the ICANN Board ensuring >that appropriate consideration is given to all views from all >stakeholders, proportionally to their scope, relevance, and >decision-making requirements in ICANN. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Accountability
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

I have had no comments on this via e-mail or on the Wiki. Last call for comments (or at least an intent to make comments and the expected date). Alan At 26/01/2017 08:37 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As you are aware, the CCWG- Accountability WS2 subgroup on SO/AC >Accountability is tasked with (among other things) evaluating the >accountability and transparency of ICANN SOs and ACs. > >In the interest of transparency, I note that Cheryl Langdon-Orr is a >Co-Rapporteur of the group and I, Avri Doria, Christopher Wilkinson, >Sebastien Bachollet, Seun Ojedeji and Sivasubramanian Muthusamy are >members (some more active than others). > >In carrying out its task, the groups has posed a number of questions >to each AC/SO. I have attempted to draft a reply that covers >At-Large (ALAC plus RALOs). A copy of the the draft is attached. > >I ask all ALAC Members and RALO leaders to review this draft and >feed any comments back to me (in Word version or just e-mail >referencing line numbers will be fine). I am also asking staff to >post this on a wiki page so that the wiki can be used for comments. >The intent is that we can formalize this well before Copenhagen. > >Alan

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Dear all, FYI -- a response from me, to a thread that came up on the ISOC Chapter leaders mailing list. The topic is specifically the downgrading of At-Large Structures by equalling them to individual membership. With many chapters as At-Large Structures, the Internet Society Chapters would be affected. BTW -- as part of the At-Large Review working group, I submitted over 100 comments on the original document that was presented by the consultants to the Review working group. It appears that most of my comments were ignored. I plan to comment further - when I find the time to do so - and would be happy to contribute to an ALAC comment. Kindest regards, Olivier ps. I admit that I am one of the "big-mouthed" people. :-) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:37:05 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com>, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org> On 04/02/2017 21:01, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > Problems like capture by a few individuals will not be solved and in > fact most likely will be aggravated by the "enhanced membership model." The Review carries anonymous quotes from people who dislike the fact that At-Large and the ALAC are standing in their way to turn ICANN into a domain name business association. Bringing the input of Internet end users to ICANN's technically and legally super-complex processes is a very hard task indeed. I know - I chaired that process for 4 years and to say that it was challenging is an understatement. But the current structure of At-Large which has several tiers for hierarchy of "control" but an entirely open bottom-up model where everybody is allowed to attend any meeting or call and to participate and to voice their opinion, actually provides for a stable environment with stable processes which can actually help in reaching consensus and getting the ALAC to act. That is exactly the thing that bothers other parts of ICANN: that the ALAC is slowly but surely, over time, surmounting the largest hurdle to a multi-stakeholder system which is to get the input of the real end users out there - and that it is doing so with renewed harmony and proven bottom-up processes. Instead, as Alejandro mentions, the Review asks for a return to an unstable, free for all, system based only on individual members speaking for themselves only, a system that was shown to fail miserably as it generates conflict with no safeguards whatsoever and favours those with a bigger mouth than anyone else. The ICANN version 1 experiment failed noticeably in the early 2000s, with ballot stuffing in wide practice and mailing lists that were filled with flame wars fuelled by socio-paths. I remember that so well: having been subscribed to the early DNSO (Domain Name Support Association) mailing list, I quickly got sick of the daily dose of venom from psychos that should have been interned, un-subscribed myself and, after the failed At-Large elections which I predicted were going to fail, removed myself completely from having anything to do with ICANN until it had a meeting in Paris in 2008. The Review is deeply flawed in that it is not an analysis of At-Large and the ALAC. On the contrary, it is a collection of opinions, many of them deeply flawed or factually wrong, and recommendations derived from these flawed opinions. Good opinions of At-Large were ditched and only criticism was kept, whether warranted or unwarranted. It is a lynching of reality and I give it as much truth as the flawed populist campaigns the world has recently seen, thus predicting an equally gruesome future for At-Large. By following the mantra "Let's make At-Large great again", the reviewers are actually proposing to kill it. Kindest regards, Olivier (own opinions) _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

3 2

ICANN statement on travel to and from the USA
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

ICANN statement - https://www.icann.org/news/blog/travel-to-and-from-the-united-states Best regards, Rinalia

1 0