May 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

GNSO Subsequent Procedures CC2 questions
by Maureen Hilyard May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

My dear colleagues In the interest of time, because this PC is due on the 22 May, two WorkTrack teams have initiated comments and we would like to consult further. Please add any comments (and your name if you wish) in the workspace indicated. (The questions that go with the responses, are at the top of the workspace) Work Track 1 - an Overview <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Work Track 4 - IDNs <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Your input would be greatly appreciated :) Maureen

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Issue related to the Appointment of Directors by Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Thanks for the vote of endorsement Seun. I can always rely on you for a good question. In this case, the answer is relatively easy. We will add a clause saying that for all actions related to the EC designating Directors selected by the SOs, At-Large or the NomCom under Bylaws section 7.2(a), or for the removal of Directors by the Board under Bylaws 7.11(a)(i)(B) and 7.11(a)(ii), the ALAC is deemed to have instructed the EC Representative to act in accordance with the Bylaws. Alan At 11/05/2017 11:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >Am fine with your endorsement on this by default. However I am not >sure what problem is to be corrected in our ROP since the Bylaw hasn't changed. > >I think it's just fine for you to do what you have just done now in future. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On May 12, 2017 4:22 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >In looking at the recent notice of the appointment of the new GNSO >Director and again at the notice for Leon, I realized we have a >small issue related to the appointment of Directors. > >Although Directors are selected by the SOs, At-Large and the NomCom, >under the new Empowered Community model, the actual appointment >(technically under California statutes, they are "designated") to >the Board is done by the Empowered Community (EC) through the EC >Administration. The EC Administration is not a true body but the >name given to the five representatives of the "Decisional >Participants", the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC and ALAC. > >Therefore the designation is done by those five people without any >discretion to second-guess the selecting body. > >However, both the Bylaws in the general case and the ALAC Rules of >Procedure (RoP) say that the Representative can only act on express >instructions of their AC/SO. > >It is clear that the intent of the CCWG-Accountability and the >Bylaws are to not actually involve the five Decisional Participants. > >Extracts from the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC RoP are attached. > >As the appointments must be formally made without delay, I am, with >the knowledge of the ALT and in accordance with ALAC RoP 5.11, >endorsing the EC Administration designation of the new Directors >(Matthew Shears and Leon at this point) and will ask that this >decision be ratified at the upcoming ALAC meeting. > >I will also be proposing an amendment to our Rules of Procedure to >correct this inadvertent problem. > >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…

2 1

Issue related to the Appointment of Directors by Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

In looking at the recent notice of the appointment of the new GNSO Director and again at the notice for Leon, I realized we have a small issue related to the appointment of Directors. Although Directors are selected by the SOs, At-Large and the NomCom, under the new Empowered Community model, the actual appointment (technically under California statutes, they are "designated") to the Board is done by the Empowered Community (EC) through the EC Administration. The EC Administration is not a true body but the name given to the five representatives of the "Decisional Participants", the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC and ALAC. Therefore the designation is done by those five people without any discretion to second-guess the selecting body. However, both the Bylaws in the general case and the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP) say that the Representative can only act on express instructions of their AC/SO. It is clear that the intent of the CCWG-Accountability and the Bylaws are to not actually involve the five Decisional Participants. Extracts from the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC RoP are attached. As the appointments must be formally made without delay, I am, with the knowledge of the ALT and in accordance with ALAC RoP 5.11, endorsing the EC Administration designation of the new Directors (Matthew Shears and Leon at this point) and will ask that this decision be ratified at the upcoming ALAC meeting. I will also be proposing an amendment to our Rules of Procedure to correct this inadvertent problem. Alan

2 1

Fwd: Notification of Board Seat 15 Selection
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

FYI >From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> >To: Empowered Community Administration >Subject: Notification of Board Seat 15 Selection >Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:09:24 +0000 > >Dear Empowered Community Administration, >cc. ICANN Secretary and Decisional Participants > >On behalf of the ALAC Chair, Alan Greenberg, please find attached a >notification concerning the selection for Board Seat 15. > >Kind regards, >Heidi > >Heidi Ullrich >VP, Policy Development & At-Large Relations >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

INTA Report and Presentation to the RT
by Carlton Samuels May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Please see attached the full report and the presentation to the RT by the International Trademark Association (INTA) Exec Director on results of the study on impact of new gTLDs on brand owners. Note that based on the results - and the subjects are their own members - INTA is cautiously opining the results represent "*an indicator of a trend and not the trend itself"*. Circular reasoning aside, the principal indicator of trend reported says *"registrations of new TLDs were overwhelmingly made for defensive purposes...*". The report itself is 75 pages but if you read the explanatory notes you will learn how to get to the good parts. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2017

May 9, 2017

No, I wouldn't. That's why we are here. In any case, all I was doing was pointing out that there was once comment posted about pricing and was wondering if people thought that this was something we should comment on as well. As the CCT-RT has pointed out, it is difficult to know whether this is an outrageous annual increase outstripping cost-of-living increases or a TLD that is in-demand and due to ICANN price restrictions that are not on other TLDs, is still under-priced and the 10% is only catch-up. Alan At 08/05/2017 12:23 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >But really Alan, would we be expecting the ordinary end-user to be >analysing these costs and other sections of the document in a >similar way, without any prior expert knowledge about the ICANN >contractual bidding process, previous contracts and other details >you have outlined? Its outside of our scope. > >On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Maureen and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement >revisions and are not recommending and ALAC statement. > >There is one comment already pointing out that there the contract >(both the current one and the revised one) allow for a 10$ increase >in the price to the registrar per year. Note that for New gTLDs, >pricing is out of scope of ICANN registry agreements. Based on the >2011 price of $4.65 and the 2017 price of 8.20, it would appear that >they have used the full 10% over the term of the last current >agreement. The 10% rate is the same as that in the current .ORG >agreement. .COM presumably due to the size of the registrant base is >price-capped. > >The comment also says the contract should not be renewed, but rather >put out for competitive bidding - something that is not within >ICANN's ability to decide (and confirmed by the statement calling >upon government anti-trust action). See ><https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/0000…>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/0000…. > >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… >

4 3

Open for Public Comment: CCWG-Accountability WS2 draft Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights
by Bastiaan Goslings May 9, 2017

May 9, 2017

Another one we probably need to have a look at and (consider to) comment on? -B > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Niels ten Oever <lists(a)nielstenoever.net> > Subject: [Ws2-hr] Public Comment HR is open > Date: 9 May 2017 at 15:00:11 GMT+2 > To: "ws2-hr(a)icann.org" <ws2-hr(a)icann.org> > > Dear all, > > In case you did not see it yet, the fruit of our work is open for Public > Comment: > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/foi-hr-2017-05-05-en > > Best, > > Niels > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

2 1

Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2017

May 9, 2017

Maureen and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement revisions and are not recommending and ALAC statement. There is one comment already pointing out that there the contract (both the current one and the revised one) allow for a 10$ increase in the price to the registrar per year. Note that for New gTLDs, pricing is out of scope of ICANN registry agreements. Based on the 2011 price of $4.65 and the 2017 price of 8.20, it would appear that they have used the full 10% over the term of the last current agreement. The 10% rate is the same as that in the current .ORG agreement. .COM presumably due to the size of the registrant base is price-capped. The comment also says the contract should not be renewed, but rather put out for competitive bidding - something that is not within ICANN's ability to decide (and confirmed by the statement calling upon government anti-trust action). See https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/0000…. Alan

9 12

ICANN as a 501(c)(3) Organisation
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 8, 2017

May 8, 2017

Dear Alan, as a follow-up to my explanation on the ALAC mailing list about ICANN being a 501(c)(3) organisation, the relevant Article of Incorporation paragraph is: (Ref: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en ) /Article 2.I.II: This Corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes. The Corporation is organized, and will be operated, exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes within the meaning of § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “*Code*”), or the corresponding provision of any future United States tax code. Any reference in these Articles to the Code shall include the corresponding provisions of any future United States tax code. In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by _Article IV_ hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of *lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest *in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process. Article 2.IV: Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles: a. The Corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (i) by a corporation exempt from United States income tax under § 501(c)(3) of the Code or (ii) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under § 170(c)(2) of the Code. b. No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the Corporation shall be empowered to make the election under § 501 (h) of the Code./ So what does the § 501(c)(3) tax code say? http://bit.ly/1Va1vVt To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized <https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/organiza…> and operated <https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/operatio…> exclusively for exempt purposes <https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-p…> set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure <https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/inuremen…> to any private shareholder or individual. Exempt purposes: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exempt-p… /The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term /charitable/ is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; *lessening the burdens of government*; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency./ So "lessening the burdens of government" is clearly the key reason for ICANN to operate as 501(c)(3), but as you can see there are other possible purposes. (As a side track, it is particularly important to note the "global public interest" part of the mission which is still undefined and unresolved.) With the new gTLD program generating a large income, ICANN needs to be very careful and show sustained support for "lessening the burdens of government" - thus support all sorts of Internet-related activities outside of ICANN. Not doing so, it could be accused of "excess benefit transactions" https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/intermed… and be sanctioned. ICANN needs to walk a very fine line on this. I am not a US tax attorney and have very little knowledge of the matter, but it is my understanding that if ICANN was to stop supporting initiatives in the wider Internet ecosystem space, activities related to ICANN but not *strictly* relating to Names and Numbers, it would risk losing its 501(c)(3) status. This loss of 501(c)(3) status is completely independent of the point of view that some are holding that ICANN is spending too much money outside ICANN core activities. It is also worth noting that adhering to the conditions for retaining 501(c)(3) status will be a key issue for the allocation of Auction funds. I really think that we should fully play this card when it comes down to use of funds in ICANN. The At-Large Community is part of this "promoting the global public interest" and we need to remind everyone about this regularly. Kindest regards, Olivier

8 16

Fwd: Notification of Board Seat 14 Selection
by Alan Greenberg May 6, 2017

May 6, 2017

fyi >On behalf of the GNSO Chair, James Bladel, >please find attached a notification concerning >the selection for Board Seat 14. > >Best regards, > >Marika > >Marika Konings >Vice President, Policy Development Support >GNSO, Internet Corporation foor Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >Email: <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org

2 1