February 2018 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: invitation to present at the ccNSO Members Meeting (Wed, 14 March): ICANN61
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

FYI. Anyone who is available is invited to attend to contribute to this discussion (in person in Puerto Rico or remotely) It coincides with the WT5 meeting. M ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 5:32 AM Subject: invitation to present at the ccNSO Members Meeting (Wed, 14 March): ICANN61 To: Pablo Rodriguez <pablo(a)nic.pr>, Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Leonid Todorov <l.todorov(a)aptld.org>, Miguel Ignacio Estrada <gm(a)staff.lactld.org>, Barrack Otieno < otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com>, Peter Van Roste <peter(a)centr.org> Cc: Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso(a)cctld.gt>, Katrina Sataki < katrina(a)nic.lv> Dear all, This e-mail is to invite you to give a presentation at the session on the *Impact of natural disasters on ccTLDs, registrars and registrants, and mitigation of the impact*, held during the ccNSO Members at ICANN61 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The session will take place on Wednesday morning, 14 March (Room 209 BC). Below please find some information on the timing and further practical details, including the deadline to submit your presentation slides. May I kindly invite you to confirm your participation at your earliest convenience? Thank you! = = = = 09:00 09:05 *Impact natural disasters on ccTLDs, registrars and registrants and mitigation of the impact* Session Chair: Katrina Sataki 09:00 09:05 introduction by the session chair 09:05 09:20 recent experience for .pr: Pablo Rodriguez (.pr) 09:20 09:35 Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) 09:35 10:05 Survey results regional organisations: presenter(s) TBC 10:05 10:15 Q&A ad wrap-up = = = = *Background on this session:* Javier Rua-Jovet, ALAC member from Puerto Rico has asked the ALAC if it would be possible to investigate the possibility of some global ICANN protection and/or mitigation measures to help people who might experience a similar situation (anywhere in the world, for whatever disaster situation). The idea was raised to give some consideration to a flexible policy that could alleviate the anxieties of registrants whose domain names may be at risk of expiry if they are not resumed within the critical time frames. This would be especially relevant to areas that are more susceptible to similar types of natural disasters that can wipe out essential internet related infrastructure and access. The ALAC is seeking support from other SO/ACs for developing a strategy that they might propose to the Board. The “helping ccTLDs, registrars and registrants in case of natural disasters”-session was placed on the agenda of the ICANN61 ccNSO Members Meeting, based on a conversation Katrina had with ALAC, and a mutual commitment to turn this session into something valuable for both communities, while we meet in San Juan. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171118_icann_guidance_to_ domain_registrars_registries_about_hurricane/ https://www.icann.org/news/blog/assisting-registrants-in- areas-affected-by-hurricane-maria *The deadline to submit your presentation slides: * Tue, 27 February 2018, end of day. Please send your slides to Kim ( kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org ) with me (joke.braeken(a)icann.org ) in copy. Kindly let us know if you do not intend to use any slides, or if the deadline cannot be met. *Tips to make your presentation interactive: * Being asked to participate in a presentation makes listeners more interested and engaged. Simple movements like a show of hands can reinvigorate a distracted audience. Having audience interaction makes your presentation more interesting and easier on everyone. Presenters can either take a seat at the head table or use a roving microphone. *Format presentation slides: * .pdf AND the original (for instance in .ppt). The ccNSO Secretariat would appreciate to have both versions to make the broadcast in the AdobeConnect room a success. Should your slides have animations, a correct display cannot be guaranteed. Kim is available to assist you regarding any questions you might have about the format or display of the presentation slides. *ICANN61: links* - ccNSO Members Meeting agenda: https://buff.ly/2DEc1od - Consult the https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/ ICANN61+-+San+Juan,+PR+2018 , including remote participation details, noting that the ICANN meeting schedule will be posted on Monday, 19 February 2018. - Visa information: https://meetings.icann.org/en/sanjuan61#travel If you require a visa, please make sure to start the application process in a timely manner. - The comprehensive meeting schedule will be posted on Monday, 19 February 2018. - ICANN61 meeting site: https://meetings.icann.org/en/sanjuan61 Please make sure to register for the meeting - ICANN60 Mobile App: meetingapp.icann.org We look forward to seeing you in Puerto Rico. Do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you! Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

3 4

Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required? At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >But as Holly said, sometimes you just need >another space to reorganise your thoughts before >it becomes the final draft... although sometimes >it ends up as the final draft.. > >But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final.. > >There should be two boxes to start off with, and >the penholder can ask for another one if >required as a transition section before the >final statement . But it should be highlighted >in another colour what changes have been made. > >On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >When I was drafting more statements, I also >would often post my "first draft" in the comment >area and move it up if it had general >acceptance. But there will always be cases where >there are multiple draft versions posted and I >was trying to find a really easy path for doing >that without losing history along the way. >Having staff create new boxes along the ways >seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... > >Alan > >At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >>I think there is room for having personal >>comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki >>page, but drafts of the statement should be >>able to be inserted as they develop. It might >>mean teaching penholders how to create these >>boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy >>support staff person to create one for them. >> >> >> >>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche >><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >>Makes sense to me. When I died to post a >>Ã¢firirst draftÃ¢ of f the privacy stuff, I >>couldnÃ¢t, and so put stuff in tn the >>Ã¢commentÃ¢ ¬â¢ space. While that whole >>wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion >>was, it doesnÃ¢t follow the concept of firfirst and final draft >>Holly >>On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard >><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Sounds good to me because when you don't see >>>the developments as new contributions are >>>incorporated into the statements, it may seem >>>as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors >>>Some statements go through several transitions. >>> >>>M >>>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>>It has been pointed out to me that the >>>template we use has a space for "First Draft" >>>and then "Final Draft". This works for issues >>>that do not generate a lot of dialogue and >>>revision of the statement. For such >>>statements, there is no specific place to post >>>the revised version(s). Simply changing the >>>first draft does not really work, because then >>>we are left with Wiki comments on that draft >>>that refer back to something that is no longer >>>there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). >>>I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST >>>DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add >>>instructions saying that if multiple draft >>>versions are posted, old versions should >>>remain, with the newer version posted at the >>>top of the box, prefixed with the date posted >>>and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. >>>That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. >>> >>>Does anyone see a reason not to do this? >>>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… >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by bartlett.morgan Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

As something of an aside, the underlying suitability of the current wiki to our policy drafting needs might need to be considered. TTF? Re the issue on the table. For right now, I'm drawn towards manually inserting the newer version of a statement at the top with relevant identifying info (date erc). The prior statement(s) would remain beneath for reference. Inelegant? Yes. Sent from Samsung Focus <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com> </div><div>Date: 2/2/18 5:12 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> </div><div>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template </div><div> </div>Hi all, I agree with Maureen Best Judith Sent from my iPhoneJudith(a)jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Feb 2, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: If we are working towards an appropriate statement that reflects all related views then, does it matter? The page can be as long as we like as long as we get to the end product. You asked for our opinions but you are still stating your own as THE view. (and I'm not being grumpy about it, Im just stating my piece. :)) And as you say it happens infrequently, but when it does, why are we sticking to a dumb rule. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: This happens relatively infrequently. Why create a new process that requires staff intervention when simply stacking the version in the box now called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required? At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: But as Holly said, sometimes you just need another space to reorganise your thoughts before it becomes the final draft... although sometimes it ends up as the final draft.. But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final.. There should be two boxes to start off with, and the penholder can ask for another one if required as a transition section before the final statement . But it should be highlighted in another colour what changes have been made. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: I think there is room for having personal comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki page, but drafts of the statement should be able to be inserted as they develop. It might mean teaching penholders how to create these boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy support staff person to create one for them. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche < h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: Makes sense to me. When I died to post a Ã¢€˜firirst draftÃ¢€™ of f the privacy stuff, I couldnÃ¢€™t, and so put stuff in tn the Ã¢€˜commentÃ¢€™ ¬â„¢ space. While that whole wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it doesnÃ¢€™t follow the concept of firfirst and final draft Holly On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sounds good to me because when you don't see the developments as new contributions are incorporated into the statements, it may seem as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors Some statements go through several transitions. M On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that is no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan _______________________________________________ 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… _______________________________________________ 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… _______________________________________________ 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] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

When I was drafting more statements, I also would often post my "first draft" in the comment area and move it up if it had general acceptance. But there will always be cases where there are multiple draft versions posted and I was trying to find a really easy path for doing that without losing history along the way. Having staff create new boxes along the ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... Alan At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >I think there is room for having personal >comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki >page, but drafts of the statement should be able >to be inserted as they develop. It might mean >teaching penholders how to create these boxes >for new drafts or asking the new policy support >staff person to create one for them. > > > >On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche ><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >Makes sense to me. When I died to post a >âfirst draftâ of the privacy stuff, I >couldnât, and so put stuff in the >âcommentâ space. While that whole wiki >reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it >doesnât follow the concept of first and final draft > >Holly > >On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard ><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Sounds good to me because when you don't see >>the developments as new contributions are >>incorporated into the statements, it may seem >>as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors >> >>Some statements go through several transitions. >> >>M >> >>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>It has been pointed out to me that the template >>we use has a space for "First Draft" and then >>"Final Draft". This works for issues that do >>not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of >>the statement. For such statements, there is no >>specific place to post the revised version(s). >>Simply changing the first draft does not really >>work, because then we are left with Wiki >>comments on that draft that refer back to >>something that is no longer there (unless you >>go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). >> >>I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST >>DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add >>instructions saying that if multiple draft >>versions are posted, old versions should >>remain, with the newer version posted at the >>top of the box, prefixed with the date posted >>and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. >> >>That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. >> >>Does anyone see a reason not to do this? >> >>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… >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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