August 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

The GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures has decided to initiate a Work Track on the use geographic names at the top level, and the ALAC, along with the GNSO, ccNSO and GAC, has been invited to participate. As a first step, co-leaders are being requested and as you know from http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html, the ALAC is seeking someone to take on this role on behalf of the ALAC. The co-leaders, once selected, will work with the PDP WG Co-Chairs to establish the further procedures and the full terms of reference will likely be established by the WT itself However, it is envisaged that this new Work Track will operate with procedures comparable to a CCWG. If this is indeed what happens, the Work Track, unlike most GNSO PDP efforts, may include: - Members formally appointed by the AC/SOs; - Participants; - A decision process wherein Members only may take part (used only if necessary) - The . The ALAC needs to decide how it will participate, and the criteria for selecting Members (presuming this is the path chosen). The first part, I think, is relatively simple. I believe the ALAC should agree to be a full participant with the understanding that we agree to the terms of reference, and that we are not bound by the outcomes until and unless we ratify them at the conclusion of WT5 work. The selection of Members (if there are any) is more complex. Normally, we are allotted five Members and I would expect that to be the case here. We typically solicit volunteers and the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee makes recommendations to the ALAC, with the expectation is that there be one candidate per region. This situation is more challenging in that the ALAC and At-Large may have a variety of positions ranging from: - National or local governments should have absolute control over the use of their names (or other geographic identifiers); to - We have many examples of the use of geographic names in existing domains and there is no evidence of harm, so we should allow a very liberal use of geographic names in the new TLDs. - In between, there are views that there should be a mechanism to arbitrate when there are different parties seeking a name, or a process like the Trademark Clearinghouse where parties can register their "interest" in a name. It is therefore really important to understand the variety of views and make sure that our delegation to the WT represents all of these. In order to do this, I think we need a discussion of what positions are held. This is NOT an opportunity to agree or disagree with positions presented, but to simply understand how views vary within At-Large. I would like to open the discussion on this list to start with, and once we have a good idea of ideas, to validate them with the wider At-Large Community. With this mail, I am soliciting input on three questions: 1. Do you agree with my proposal on the conditions for participating or if not, what do you propose instead? 2. Assuming we will be asked to appoint Members, should we try to balance their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice on the WT? This *might* mean we end up balancing views and not have all five regions represented. 3. What are your views on how to address the use of geographic names in Top Level Domains? Alan

14 23

Re: [ALAC] Call for Volunteers: Co-Leader for WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

This Call is being re-opened and extended until 15:59 UTC on Wednesday, 30 August 2017. Alan Greenberg At 23/08/2017 12:36 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is >establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) which will focus exclusively >on geographic names at the top-level. This has been a very >contentious issue with a wide variety of difficult-to-reconcile >positions, but one that must be resolved prior to any future new >gTLD availability. > >In order to promote broad participation from across the community, >the WG is seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5 with >co-leaders from the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO. > >Past efforts in this area have included a ccNSO Study Group and a >Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on the use of country names as >Top Level Domains (TLDs). (See >https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm and >https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm.) > >We are looking for a person who is well acquainted with the multiple >views on the subject within ICANN, has knowledge of and preferably >experience in the past efforts, and who can work closely with the >ALAC and an At-Large WG supporting the effort. > >We note that to a large extent, the person serving in this capacity >is a facilitator for the Work Track and not there to put forward >their personal positions. > >Interested candidates should send an Expression of Interest >detailing their experience and willingness to serve in all aspects >of this role to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org no later than 23:59 UTC on >Monday, 28 August 2017. > >The ALAC will also be looking for volunteers to participate in the >WT5 once it is established, but this Call for Volunteers is >exclusively for the position of Co-Leader. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Evan, regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong", it looks like this group will exist so the question is whether we want to be present or not. It is not yet clear how other groups and particularly the GAC will react, but we need to make a decision for ourselves. If it is the wish of the ALAC that we sit this one out, that would not have MY support, but then, my support is not needed for such a decision. Alan At 27/08/2017 03:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Personally, I see this all as just laying down >and letting the process run over us. Yet once >more At-Large is driven to be reactive to >industry whims rather than proactive of the >interests of the Internet-using community who we exist to serve (1). > >Here we are, getting into the details of what >subsequent rounds will be like, while there are >significant pockets of opinion that that no >expansion AT ALL proceed until sufficient study >has been done of the benefits/harms of previous rounds. > >âIndeed, the feedback received from such >research might have direct impact on issues such >as geographic names, so IMO this WG is FAR FAR >premature. The industry compact of domain >sellers and speculative buyers -- the >overwhelming beneficiaries of the expansion(2) >-- is driving this to happen through the GNSO, >and ALAC is one of the few voices that even has >the ICANN-given mandate to slow it down and have it done right (if at all). > >That something as significant as the >subsequent-round process is GNSO driven and not >a full CCWG is cause for concern. Obviously too >few lessons have been learned from the debacles of the past. > >So At-Large is back in reaction mode just like >we were the first time. Likewise, that the GAC >is "invited to participate" in the discussion of >geo names, rather than itself be the driver, is >an indictment of ICANN's process. The result of >this mess is a continuation (and perhaps >escalation) of the kind of problems that exist >with Amazon and the Red Cross, a continued >erosion of trust in ICANN's stewardship of >domains, and a further undermining of multistakeholderism in general. > >I would consider unacceptable any participation >in such a WG without explicit disclaimer that >its work -- as that of the other WGs involved in >this PDP -- cannot be considered finished until >a substantial review of the previous round has >taken place and that the results of any such >review be integrated in the WGs' outcomes. > >(1) It is most tempting here to use the term >"public interest", but I prefer not to re-enter that hurricane >(2) To be honest, ICANN itself is a beneficiary >of the expansion, as it is now financially dependent on maximizing domain sales > >- Evan

2 1

Review of WG Web and Wiki pages
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 27, 2017

Aug. 27, 2017

As I mentioned during the last ALAC meeting while discussing the At-Large Review Recommendation 7 on the Working Groups, I have asked our support staff to begin a review of all of the web and wiki pages associated with WGs, SCs, etc. with an aim to: - updating (and if appropriate correcting) the information; - using standardized formats where appropriate; - making it clearer to those looking at the pages what the groups do and which groups are open for membership. Evin Erdogdu has been asked to do this work, overseen by Heidi and me. As a result, over the coming weeks, you can expect to see these pages updated, and if you are leading any of these groups, you may be contacted by Evin to answer questions she has or provide information needed to improve our online presence. Please give Evin your full cooperation. We will from time to time provide updates on how the work is progressing. Alan

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Co-Leader for WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

The GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) which will focus exclusively on geographic names at the top-level. This has been a very contentious issue with a wide variety of difficult-to-reconcile positions, but one that must be resolved prior to any future new gTLD availability. In order to promote broad participation from across the community, the WG is seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5 with co-leaders from the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO. Past efforts in this area have included a ccNSO Study Group and a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on the use of country names as Top Level Domains (TLDs). (See https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm and https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm.) We are looking for a person who is well acquainted with the multiple views on the subject within ICANN, has knowledge of and preferably experience in the past efforts, and who can work closely with the ALAC and an At-Large WG supporting the effort. We note that to a large extent, the person serving in this capacity is a facilitator for the Work Track and not there to put forward their personal positions. Interested candidates should send an Expression of Interest detailing their experience and willingness to serve in all aspects of this role to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org no later than 23:59 UTC on Monday, 28 August 2017. The ALAC will also be looking for volunteers to participate in the WT5 once it is established, but this Call for Volunteers is exclusively for the position of Co-Leader. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] At-Large Review Feasibility Study
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 19, 2017

Aug. 19, 2017

That is "Organizational" Effectiveness Committee... Alan At 19/08/2017 12:06 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Please find attached the At-Large Review Feasibility Study to be >submitted to the Board Operational Effectiveness Committee. > >This Documents will be a major focus of DISCUSSION and DECISION >during the ALAC meeting this coming Tuesday. > >The decision will be on this document IN PRINCIPLE. The document >still needs some additional sections (history and timeline) to be >drafted and an overall cleanup, but will not change in substance. > >This document is largely based on the last response to the Draft >At-Large Review Report approved by the ALAC, and has been subject to >significant community feedback and input, culminating in a very well >attended Webinar last week. The input received during that Webinar >has now been integrated. > >Please review this document one final time in preparation for the >discussion on Tuesday. > >I wish to thank all who have contributed to this and give a special >vote of thanks to Cheryl, Holly and Maureen for their work on the >final editing. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] At-Large Review Feasibility Study
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 19, 2017

Aug. 19, 2017

Thanks Evan. This is just the start of a long process to actually implement what we are agreeing to do, but it is good to finally get to this stage. Alan At 19/08/2017 12:33 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Very nice work. Clear and direct. >Thanks to all involved in its development. > > >On 19 August 2017 at 12:06, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Please find attached the At-Large Review Feasibility Study to be >submitted to the Board Operational Effectiveness Committee. > >This Documents will be a major focus of DISCUSSION and DECISION >during the ALAC meeting this coming Tuesday. > >The decision will be on this document IN PRINCIPLE. The document >still needs some additional sections (history and timeline) to be >drafted and an overall cleanup, but will not change in substance. > >This document is largely based on the last response to the Draft >At-Large Review Report approved by the ALAC, and has been subject to >significant community feedback and input, culminating in a very well >attended Webinar last week. The input received during that Webinar >has now been integrated. > >Please review this document one final time in preparation for the >discussion on Tuesday. > >I wish to thank all who have contributed to this and give a special >vote of thanks to Cheryl, Holly and Maureen for their work on the >final editing. > >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

At-Large Review Feasibility Study
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 19, 2017

Aug. 19, 2017

Please find attached the At-Large Review Feasibility Study to be submitted to the Board Operational Effectiveness Committee. This Documents will be a major focus of DISCUSSION and DECISION during the ALAC meeting this coming Tuesday. The decision will be on this document IN PRINCIPLE. The document still needs some additional sections (history and timeline) to be drafted and an overall cleanup, but will not change in substance. This document is largely based on the last response to the Draft At-Large Review Report approved by the ALAC, and has been subject to significant community feedback and input, culminating in a very well attended Webinar last week. The input received during that Webinar has now been integrated. Please review this document one final time in preparation for the discussion on Tuesday. I wish to thank all who have contributed to this and give a special vote of thanks to Cheryl, Holly and Maureen for their work on the final editing. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] 2017-2018 ALAC Leadership Team
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 19, 2017

Aug. 19, 2017

Thanks for the kind words Rinalia. Alan At 18/08/2017 02:35 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Hello, ALAC! > >Congratulations to the ALAC and to the new Leadership Team! > >The information on the new team has been shared with the Board and >it is very warmly received. > >I have no doubt that the ALAC and its new leadership will enhance >the impact of the At-Large in ICANN. > >I am heartened by all the soul-searching and hard work that the >At-Large has engaged in to ensure improvements for a stronger >community that represents end user interest. I know there is still >quite a bit of work left and I can see that Alan is rolling up his >sleeve to get it done. His leadership and contributions to ICANN are >acknowledged and appreciated by the Board and the CEO. > >I would like to take the opportunity to thank the outgoing team. >They have done a tremendous service to the community. > >You all continue to make me extremely proud to be the At-Large >selected director. > >With best wishes for the future, > >Rinalia > > >On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Nominations for the 2017-2018 ALT closed on 08 August 2017. Four >nominations had been received, one per region: > >AFRALO: Seun Ojedeji >APRALO: Maureen Hilyard >EURALO: Bastiaan Goslings >LACRALO: Bartlett Morgan > >All four have accepted the nomination. In accordance with our RoP >16.3: "If, following the close of the acceptance period or after all >nominations have been accepted, there is only one candidate for a >given position, or if as the process continues one or more >candidates withdraw leaving only one remaining candidate, the sole >candidate will be declared the winner by acclamation without the >need for a decision of the ALAC.", all four are declared to have >been appointed by acclamation to the serve on the 2017-2018 ALT. > >There were no explicit nominations for Vice-Chair. As specified in >the Call for Nominations, in such a case, the incoming Chair may >select the Vice-Chairs. I have asked Maureen and Bastiaan to serve >in this capacity and they have both accepted. > >I thank Sean, Maureen, Bastiaan and Bartlett for agreeing to serve >the ALAC and At-Large in this way. I am delighted with this team, >and look forward to working with them. > >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;CY4PR03MB2709;27:5Y4ntrtZGjNsc8AqJEM3og6BPiyw5RGFJFlz13OJlat89TxCkmw2x12U+40sGVG76ayGPdvU5dBmFUMOQWHDOdUy4pKj5EveIovxaB+glVCYIKGJAA1B/WcRTQnIruuS >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >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

2017-2018 ALAC Leadership Team
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 18, 2017

Aug. 18, 2017

Nominations for the 2017-2018 ALT closed on 08 August 2017. Four nominations had been received, one per region: AFRALO: Seun Ojedeji APRALO: Maureen Hilyard EURALO: Bastiaan Goslings LACRALO: Bartlett Morgan All four have accepted the nomination. In accordance with our RoP 16.3: "If, following the close of the acceptance period or after all nominations have been accepted, there is only one candidate for a given position, or if as the process continues one or more candidates withdraw leaving only one remaining candidate, the sole candidate will be declared the winner by acclamation without the need for a decision of the ALAC.", all four are declared to have been appointed by acclamation to the serve on the 2017-2018 ALT. There were no explicit nominations for Vice-Chair. As specified in the Call for Nominations, in such a case, the incoming Chair may select the Vice-Chairs. I have asked Maureen and Bastiaan to serve in this capacity and they have both accepted. I thank Sean, Maureen, Bastiaan and Bartlett for agreeing to serve the ALAC and At-Large in this way. I am delighted with this team, and look forward to working with them. Alan

22 21